Last Friday Derrington J in the Federal Court in Queensland tackled this question which remains unresolved in Australia, in Lane (Trustee), in the matter of Lee (Bankrupt) v Commissioner of Taxation (No 3) [2018] FCA 1572.

The long awaited new Scottish Insolvency Rules for Company Voluntary Arrangements and Administration (The Insolvency (Scotland) (Company Voluntary Arrangements and Administration) Rules 2018) were laid in Parliament today. The Rules are a negative SI which means they do not need active approval by Parliament and will automatically come into effect as law unless either the Commons or Lords annuls them within a fixed period after they have been laid. The intention is that they will commence on 6 April 2019.

It’s been reported that the board of directors of AIM-listed Patisserie Holdings plc, which owns the Patisserie Valerie chain of cafés, was not aware for almost a month that HMRC had filed a petition at the High Court of England and Wales to wind up its main trading subsidiary, Stonebeach Limited.

Recently, there have been a number of high profile insolvencies hitting the headlines with a number of High Street retailers entering insolvency either by proposing a company voluntary administration (“CVA”) or via another formal insolvency process. With the recent number of high profile insolvencies there has been scrutiny of directors’ duties not only by media but also at government level.

The new special administration regime for private registered providers introduced by the Housing and Planning Act 2016 was brought into force in England and Wales in July 2018. Should we be seeking to introduce an equivalent regime for Scotland?

The new English regime was developed as a reaction to the events surrounding Cosmopolitan Housing Group which suffered financial difficulties in 2012. It introduces the concept of a housing administrator and critically provides for such an administrator to have two objectives.

The Construction Act 1996 gives a party to a construction contract the right to refer a dispute to adjudication "at any time"; however a recent TCC decision in England has held that this right is not absolute, where the party referring the dispute to adjudication is a company in liquidation and the dispute includes any claim for further sums to be paid to them.

The decision

InLongley v Chief Executive, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection [2018] QCA 32, the Queensland Court of Appeal has clarified the ability of liquidators to disclaim onerous property, including obligations that arise in respect of that property under State environmental legislation.

The proliferation of the trust as a vehicle for commercial activity presents issues in litigation – principally, whether a beneficiary can step around an impecunious or assetless trustee and recover against other beneficiaries or third parties.

Snapshot

In the recent decision of Jones (liquidator) v Matrix Partners Pty Ltd, re Killarnee Civil & Concrete Contractors Pty Ltd (in liq) [2018] FCAFC 40 (Killarnee), the three member bench comprised Allsop CJ, and Siopis and Farrell JJ. Their Honours of the Full Court wrote three separate judgments, with the Chief Justice writing the lead.

The Victorian Court of Appeal has handed down it’s decision on appeal from Re Amerind (receivers and managers apptd)(in liq) [2017] VSC 127; (2017) 320 FLR 118. The appeal judgment is now up on Austlii and can be read here: Commonwealth of Australia v Byrnes and Hewitt as receivers and managers of Amerind Pty Ltd (receivers and managers apptd)(in liq) [2018] VSCA 41.