Prior to 1930 if an insured person/company (insured) incurred a liability to a third party (TP) but then became bankrupt/passed into liquidation any monies paid out under the insurance policy was paid to the Trustee/Liquidator for the benefit of ALL creditors.

The Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930 (1930 Act) transferred the insured’s rights against the insurer under certain circumstances to the TP who could pursue the insurer against the policy proceeds once the insured’s liability was established. So the policy proceeds may benefit the TP and not all creditors.

A recent decision of the High Court has ended an insurer’s fight to avoid being joined to insolvent trading proceedings. This decision confirms the ability of liquidators to directly pursue proceeds of insurance policies held by insolvent insured defendant directors and has important ramifications for insolvency practitioners as well as insurers and litigation funders.

Summary

In the matter of Fat 4 Pty Limited (In Liquidation)

A recent case in the Supreme Court of Victoria has provided some relief for liquidators seeking to add a defendant to a voidable transaction claim after the expiry of the limitation period in circumstances where the wrong defendant was sued by mistake. In such circumstances, liquidators can substitute the incorrect party for the desired defendant without being time barred by s 588FF(3) of the Corporations Act, irrespective of whether the liquidator’s mistake as to the correct party was reasonable.

Welcome to the third article in this amazing series which looks at what you can do to try to extract money from a stubborn business debtor.

On 29 February 2016, the Insolvency Law Reform Bill 2015 received Royal Assent. The resulting Act, the Insolvency Law Reform Act 2016 (Cth) represents the most significant suite of reforms to Australia’s bankruptcy and corporate insolvency laws in twenty years and is an integral component of the Federal Government’s agenda of improving economic incentives for innovation and entrepreneurialism.

In a decision handed down on 11 February 2016, the High Court has confirmed that the State Supreme Courts have jurisdiction to grant relief to plaintiffs seeking to join insurers of insolvent or potentially insolvent defendants, and a declaration that the insurer is liable to indemnify the defendant. 

Introduction

Tamaya Resources Limited (In Liq) v Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu [2016] FCAFC 2

It is common in large complex cases for plaintiffs to seek to amend their claims during the course of the litigation. A plaintiff may be required to pay the costs thrown away but if its amendment application was brought in good faith and with a proper explanation, it would usually be able to amend its claim.

Welcome to the second article in this amazing series which looks at what you can do to try to extract money from a stubborn business debtor.

In the first article I looked at the potential benefits and detriments of issuing a County Court Claim.  This time I will take a step back and look at what you could do prior to going to Court with your completed forms and a large cheque for the ever-growing Court fee. You can read this article here.

On 14 July 2015, the South Australian District Court in Matthews v The Tap Inn Pty Ltd [2015] SADC 108 handed down a decision whose underlying reasoning could, if applied by superior courts around Australia, broaden the scope for liquidators to pursue unfair preference claims against secured creditors.

The decision

I am sure many of you may be aware already that as of the 1st October 2015 the Bankruptcy Limit has increased to £5,000 whilst a Winding up Order remains the same at £750.00.

The limit debtor's can apply for a Debt Relief Order has also been increased from £15,000 to £20,000.