On 10 October 2019 the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman, Kate Carnell, announced an upcoming inquiry into insolvency practices. The inquiry was announced in light of rising concerns as to the efficacy of the voluntary administration process for SMEs and family-owned businesses, and concerns with the conduct of insolvency practitioners more generally.

The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment has published a Cabinet Paper outlining proposed reforms to New Zealand's insolvency laws to take account of certain recommendations made in the second report of the Insolvency Working Group from May 2017.

Non-party costs are exceptional and are only awarded when it is just to do so and when 'something more' about the non-party's conduct warrants costs.  The involvement of a parent company in litigation and avoiding a realistic settlement is an example of the 'something more' requirement being met.  In Minister of Education v H Construction North Island Ltd (in req and liq) [2019] NZHC 1459, the High Court found that McConnell Ltd's (McConnell) actions in this litigation warranted awarding non-party costs and disbursements of over a million dollars.

It is a defence to an unfair preference claim to show there were no reasonable grounds to suspect the insolvency of the debtor company.

Referred to as the ‘good faith defence’, the creditor has the onus of establishing the defence contained in section 588FG(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

Suspicion of insolvency

The courts have identified the following principles with respect to the good faith defence:

In the recent case of 1st Fleet Pty Ltd (in liquidation), the Court clarified the information disclosure obligations of external administrators in the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) (IPSC) and Insolvency Practice Rules (Corporations) 2016 (Rules).

There is only a short time period for compliance, and there can be cost consequences for non compliance.

In business it is not uncommon for a director of a company to be owed money by that company.

If the commercial relationship breaks down, the director may think it is an option to serve a creditor’s statutory demand on the debtor company.

However, recent court decisions demonstrate that issuing a creditor’s statutory demand is not a sure fire method of obtaining payment where the director is owed the debt personally or is a director of both the creditor and debtor companies.

Cases where statutory demands have been successfully challenged

On various occasions during the periods 2012 to 2018, Shane Warner Builders Limited (SWBL) regularly failed to pay GST and PAYE to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue.

In January 2018 the Commissioner filed an application to put SWBL into liquidation.  The proceeding was adjourned in March 2018 whilst the Commissioner and Applicant engaged in negotiations for relief which ultimately failed due to SWBL's history of failures to pay tax arrears and failing to provide substantive supporting evidence regarding the source of funds required to settle current tax arrears. 

North Harbour Motors Limited (in liquidation) (North Harbour) issued a statutory demand against Moffat Road Limited (Moffat) in respect of two separate $30,000 deposits paid by North Harbour to Moffat on the purchase of two properties pursuant to agreements for sale and purchase dated 6 July 2015 (the Agreements).

FTG Securities Limited involved an application by FTG Securities Limited (FTG) for declarations as to the interpretation of a Deed of Priority.  The Deed of Priority was entered into by Canterbury Finance Limited (CFL) and a bank with respect to the security interests in Tuam Ventures Limited (in Rec and in Liq) (TVL).  Declaratory relief was sought against the bank and the receivers of TVL.  An issue raised by way of an affirmative defence was whether the assignment of TVL's debt and securities to FTG is valid from a technical legal perspective and therefore wh

In what is likely to be the final chapter in the Ross Asset Management (RAM) liquidation, assuming no appeal is filed, the High Court has considered an application for directions by the liquidators of Ross Asset Management concerning how best to distribute recovered funds.  David Ross operated RAM as a Ponzi scheme for decades until the fraud was uncovered in 2012 and the company went into liquidation.  Mr Ross is currently serving a ten year plus term of imprisonment for his role as architect of the scheme.