Today, by a majority of 3-2, the High Court of Australia in Commissioner of Taxation v Australian Building Systems Pty Ltd (in liq) [2015] HCA 48 confirmed that s 254(1)(d) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) (ITAA 1936) does not impose an obligation on trustees (including administrators, receivers and liquidators) to retain sufficient moneys from the trust fund to pay tax unless a relevant assessment has been issued.

The Turnbull Government’s much-heralded ‘Innovation Statement’ was released yesterday. It contained wide-ranging statements on reforms aimed at fostering innovation across a number of sectors in the Australian economy.

One important reform area is in Australian corporate insolvency law.

Corporate insolvency law reform timetable

The Innovation Statement includes important content for the reform of Australia’s corporate insolvency laws. It is part of an ongoing reform exercise which has followed this timetable to date:

October 2016 will see the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 finally brought into force. Although five years since it passed through Parliament, the act has never received Royal Assent due to a number of practical hurdles.

The Insolvency Service published its quarterly statistics on company insolvency and individual procedures showing:

Consider this situation: a dispute has arisen between two parties in relation to an agreement which is subject to an arbitration clause. Separately, a winding up application has been made against one of the parties to the arbitration in the jurisdiction in which it is incorporated. An arbitral award is obtained against the potentially insolvent company. That company has assets in Hong Kong, against which the creditor is now seeking to enforce their rights.

According to recent press reports, Dave Forsey, Chief Executive of Sports Direct, is the latest (and most high-profile) executive to be hit by court proceedings concerning alleged failure to comply with redundancy notification procedures - in his case in his former position at fashion retailer, USC. As these and other reports confirm, there is clear evidence that the Insolvency Service is increasingly proactive in pursuing organisations, their senior personnel and insolvency practitioners who fail to file the requisite redundancy notification form (HR1) on time.

With the first PPF levy invoices based on the new Experian insolvency-risk assessment model starting to land on trustees’ door-mats, many schemes have made the unwelcome discovery that their PPF levy for 2015-16 has suffered a substantial hike. Around 200 schemes are reported to have seen levy rises in excess of £200,000.

The unanimous decision by the Full Court of the Federal Court in Templeton v Australian and Securities Investments Commission [2015] FCAFC 137 confirms that the concept of proportionality is a well-recognised factor in considering the question of reasonable remuneration for an insolvency practitioner, and that, in assessing a remuneration claim, the Court can take into account the quality and complexity of the work as well as the value and nature of any property dealt with and the time reasonably spent.

Credit Today reports that recent statistics from the Accountant in Bankruptcy (AiB), the government agency that administers the insolvency regime in Scotland, have revealed that:

The Insolvency (Protection of Essential Supplies) Order 2015 which comes in to force on 1 October 2015 significantly changes the options available for suppliers of IT services in relation to their rights against insolvent customers. Any IT supplier caught within the definition of the new legislation will need to beware that they can no longer insist on payment of outstanding invoices as a condition of continued supply to an insolvent business, nor rely on clauses applying automatic price rises upon insolvency of the customer.