This is the second in a series of articles on how the changes introduced by the 2024 JCT (Joint Contracts Tribunal) contracts will impact the practical administration of the JCT contractual mechanisms.

In this article, we look specifically at the insolvency related provisions in the 2024 Design and Build (D&B) contract and the 2024 Intermediate Building Contract with Contractor’s design (ICD) contract. We address the updates to the definition of insolvency, the impact of those changes for Employers and Contractors and the related knock-on impact to sub-contracts.

Reform of our Australian bankruptcy landscape has been the focus of policymakers for some time. The new changes lead by the Attorney-General’s Department, will see the implementation of reforms to the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (Bankruptcy Law Reforms) and further consultation on a Minimal Asset Procedure (as foreshadowed during our recent Personal Insolvency Forum) (Minimal Asset Procedure). A further development regarding the treatment of capital gains tax (CGT) is included in this update.

In a recent judgment¹, the High Court determined (contrary to the arguments of the affected secured creditor) that a debenture created a floating charge rather than a fixed charge over certain internet protocol (IP) addresses. Whilst elements of the decision are inevitably fact-specific, some broader lessons and reminders can be taken from the judgment which will be of general relevance to lenders when taking security.

1. Is a letter of support from your immediate holding company sufficient to satisfy the solvency test?

The FTX Group, an international cryptocurrency exchange platform, spectacularly collapsed in November 2022, resulting in FTX Trading Limited and 101 affiliated companies filing for relief under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court in Delaware. The Australian arm of the FTX group, FTX Australia Pty Ltd (‘FTX Aust’) and FTX Express Pty Ltd (‘FTX Express’) (collectively the ‘Companies’) was placed into administration in Australia shortly before the Chapter 11 filing.

Celsius creditors feeling the heat over preference claims

Industry insights 

Following two significant insolvency decisions in the High Court of Australia (Bryant v Badenoch Integrated Logging Pty Ltd and Metal Manufactures Pty Limited v Morton), insolvency professionals and creditors have had to reassess the value and requirements of proof   in unfair preference claim recoveries.

In a welcome clarification for administrators, the UK Supreme Court in the recent case of R (on the application of Palmer) v Northern Derbyshire Magistrates’ Court[1], held that an administrator appointed under the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) is not an “officer” of the company for the purposes of section 194(3) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA).

Introduction

Independent schools have not been immune from financial stress in recent years. Prior to the pandemic a combination of increasing staff costs, greater competition and the need for continual investment in technology and premises was already posing challenges for a number of institutions. This was exacerbated by the unique pressures of COVID, which saw income squeezed as a result of enforced school closures and reduced pupil numbers.

In a judgment that will be welcomed by insolvency professionals, the Supreme Court has today confirmed that administrators cannot be personally criminally liable for failing to notify the Secretary of State about plans for collective redundancies. This judgment follows an appeal by Robert Palmer against a finding that he was criminally liable for his failure to submit form HR1 in his capacity as the joint administrator of West Coast Capital (USC) Limited (USC).

What is the obligation?