In the recent UK case of Williams v Glover & Anor, the Court considered the novel issue of whether the right to appeal against a tax liability constitutes the "property" of a company in liquidation, in deciding whether such a right was assignable or not. In that case, the applicant liquidator sought directions as to whether it could assign the right to appeal against an assessment of tax liability to the respondent former directors of the company in liquidation. Judge Pelling QC held that while there were authorities that had considered this point, they were not binding.

In Carillion Construction Ltd v Hussain, the English High Court held that the withdrawal of letters of support given by a parent company to the directors of its subsidiary was not a transaction defrauding creditors under the Insolvency Act 1986 (UK).

In what seems to be an unrelenting trend, new figures released this month by the British Solicitors' Regulation Authority (SRA), have disclosed that 30 of the top-200 UK law firms are in serious financial difficulty and have entered into "intensive engagement" with the SRA. While no names were named, it was revealed that these firms were among a wider group of 400 UK firms that were under active management by the regulator.

The UK Supreme Court recently considered the scope of the following tests for whether a company is unable to pay its debts (as set out in section 123(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986):

• The company is unable to pay its debts as they fall due (the "cash-flow test") and
• The value of a company's assets is less than the amount of its liabilities, taking into account its contingent and prospective liabilities (the "balance-sheet test").

The Supreme Court confirmed that:

In the recent case MSI (Holdings) Pty Ltd v Mainstreet International Group Ltd, the Queensland Supreme Court confirmed that receivers of a company in liquidation can commence legal proceedings in the name of the company without leave of the court, when those proceedings relate to the recovery of secured property.

Our September 2012 insolvency update featured the article "Disclaiming Landlord's Interest in a Lease - an Australian Perspective". This article discussed the Victorian Court of Appeal's ruling that section 568(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (similar to our own section 269 of the Companies Act 1993 (NZ)) allows a liquidator to exercise his power of disclaimer to extinguish the leasehold estate of a tenant.

A creditor of a company subject to a Deed of Company Arrangement (DOCA) was recently successful in seeking termination of the DOCA by the court. As a result of the company's non-compliance with the DOCA, the majority of creditors resolved to extend the term of the DOCA and increase the amount to be paid by the company. The applicant creditor alleged that the DOCA should be terminated because the company had failed to make payment in accordance with it, and the variation had not taken effect.

The Court made an order terminating the DOCA on the grounds that:

Re Tames involved an application for the Court to approve a debtor's proposal to creditors under section 333 of the Insolvency Act. The applicant was the provisional trustee for the proposal and sought the Court's approval of the proposal's terms. If the proposal was accepted, Ms Tames (the debtor) would only pay $0.05 on the dollar to her unsecured creditors. The application for approval was opposed by ASB, one of Ms Tames' unsecured creditors.

In Dench v Gates, the New Zealand High Court considered its inherent jurisdiction to set aside a bankruptcy notice to prevent an abuse of process. Mrs Gates, the judgment debtor, had applied to the High Court to set aside a bankruptcy notice. The bankruptcy notice was based on an award of costs against Mrs Gates in respect of earlier District Court litigation initiated by her against Mr Dench, a solicitor, on the basis that he had conducted himself dishonestly while representing his client in a separate matter, in which Mrs Gates was the plaintiff.

Tegel sought summary judgment against Mr and Mrs Arnensen as guarantors of the obligations of Coastal Cuisine NZ Limited (In Receivership). The Arnensen's argued (in reliance on the equitable doctrine of marshalling) that Tegel ought not to be allowed to pursue the guarantees until the receivership of Coastal Cuisine had run its course.