On 23 March 2017, Justice Robson of the Supreme Court of Victoria declined to follow the Victorian Court of Appeal decision of Re Enhill, finding that the decision was not binding with respect to different legislation (the Companies Act 1961 (Vic) as opposed to theCorporations Act 2001 (Cth)).

Background

Since the early 1980s, there has been a divergence of judicial opinion in the decisions of Re EnhillPty Ltd [1983] 1 VR 561 and Re Suco Gold Pty Ltd (in liq) (1983) 33 SASR 99.

On 17 March, in Hambleton v Finn [2017] QDC 61, McGill SC DCJ of the District Court of Queensland applied the section 553C(1) setoff under the Corporations Act 2001 to a liquidator’s insolvent trading claim against a director.

His Honour followed the earlier decision of the District Court of Queensland in Morton v Rexel Electrical Supplies Pty Ltd. In that case, the set-off provision was applied where the liquidator was seeking the recovery of unfair preference payments.

When a lessee fails to comply with a notice to remedy a non-payment or other lease default, the lessor may be entitled to terminate the lease and retake possession of the property. This is commonly done by changing the locks.

However, a lessee who wants to save itself from being evicted can apply to court to prevent the lessor from retaking possession. In Queensland this application is made under section 124 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) and is known as an application for relief against forfeiture.

When is relief against forfeiture granted?

From the public policy standpoint, there has been a shift towards more environmental stewardship in Canada, evidenced by heightened media attention on environmental issues and by an expanded legal framework relating to the management of environmental liabilities. For example, directors may be personally liable for violation of environmental statutes1 and may face reputational harm if the corporations they manage are found to have breached environmental rules or norms.

Last week the Supreme Court of New South Wales provided another timely reminder to ensure that all security interests are correctly registered on the Personal Property and Securities Register (PPSR) through the decision In the matter of OneSteel Manufacturing Pty Ltd (administrators appointed) [2017] NSWSC 21.

The facts

Alleasing Pty Ltd leased a crushing and screening plant (for approximately $4 million annually in rent) and spare parts for the crusher to OneSteel Manufacturing Pty Limited.

Failing to register a lessor’s security interest on the PPSR over plant and equipment at leased premises can result in the lessor’s unperfected security interest passing to the administrator of the lessee.

In the recent decision of Flown Pty Ltd v Goldrange Pty Ltd [2016] WASC 419, a lessee’s administrator successfully retained ownership of plant and equipment (which were not fixtures) in the leased premises.

Background

In the recent case of Hadley v BetHQ Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 1263, the debtor company, BetHQ, came to grief when a statutory demand was validly served at the company’s registered office in Brisbane as shown in ASIC records. The premises were a serviced office; however BetHQ had ceased operations at the serviced office and had moved its operations to Victoria.

On December 10, 2016, the Forfeited Corporate Property Act, 2015 ("FCPA") came into force in Ontario. The FCPA has the effect of amending the Ontario Business Corporations Act ("OBCA") and the Corporations Act. There are also similar amendments made to the Ontario Not-for-Profit Corporations Act ("ONPCA"), but they have not yet come into force. The legislation effects changes to forfeiture of corporate real estate and corporate record-keeping requirements.

When a secured creditor appoints a receiver it is usual for them to sign an agreement setting out the terms of the receiver’s appointment, including payment of the receiver’s remuneration, costs and expenses. Appointment documents commonly contain indemnity clauses in which the secured creditor agrees to indemnify the receiver in specified circumstances.

Does a fine imposed on a debtor by the disciplinary committee of the Chambre de la sécurité financière after the date of the debtor's bankruptcy constitute a provable claim pursuant to section 121(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the "BIA")?

Introduction