In September 2013 we reported on the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 which provided the Government with the power to extend the law regarding the supply of essential services to insolvent customers. These reforms were anticipated to come into force in April 2014. It has now been announced that the changes will come into force on 1 October 2015.

Extension of essential supplies

It is not uncommon for companies served with wind up proceedings to appoint external administrators for the purposes of investigating the affairs of the company and so that recommendations can be made to creditors to either have the company wound up, execute a deed of company arrangement or hand the company back into the control of directors.

In circumstances where the administrators conclude that the company should be wound up, it is common for the administrators to seek to be appointed as the official liquidators of the company.

In so far as they relates to creditor's statutory demands, the provisions of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) are construed by the courts particularly prescriptively.

On 5 June 2015, His Honour Justice Brereton delivered judgment in In the matter of Unity Resources Group Australia Pty Limited [2015] NSWSC 1174. This is another example of the technical application of these sections by the court.

In Winnington Networks Communications Ltd v HMRC^[1], the Chancery Division Companies Court (Nicholas Le Poidevin QC) refused the taxpayer company's application to have HMRC's winding-up petitions dismissed, as it had failed to provide evidence that it had a real prospect of successfully disputing the debt claimed by HMRC.

Background

The Fair Entitlements Guarantee Act 2012 (Cth) requires the Commonwealth Government to pay outstanding superannuation, annual leave, redundancy and wages entitlements for eligible employees who have lost their jobs due to the liquidation or bankruptcy of their employers. It is generally recognised as an important safety net for employees, so that their superannuation is guaranteed.

In Smailes and another v McNally and another^[i]the High Court refused the claimant's application for relief from sanctions, finding the claimant's failure in respect of its disclosure obligations under the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR 31) amounted to a significant and serious breach of an "unless order".

On 22 April 2015 the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in the case of Jetivia SA and another v Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) and others [2015] UKSC 23, which was heard in October last year.  In short it decided that: 1) defendant directors cannot raise illegality as a defence to a claim by a company where the directors themselves acted wrongfully; and 2) a claim in fraudulent trading under Section 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (Section 213)has extra-territorial effect.

Background

In SwissMarineCorporation Ltd v OW Supply & Trading[1], the High Court refused to grant an anti-suit injunction restraining Danish insolvency proceedings. This case provides a useful discussion of the circumstances in which the court are likely to grant an anti-suit injunction, and in particular where there are jurisdiction issues involving elements of both civil and insolvency proceedings.

The Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (the Act) provides a regime by which a debtor can compromise with his/her creditors outside formal bankruptcy. The provisions are found in Part X (Personal Insolvency Agreements) and Part IX (Debt Agreements) of the Act.

DEBT AGREEMENTS

In the recent case of HMRC v Munir & Others[1], HMRC successfully applied to the Court for committal of three company officers for contempt of court where an order appointing a provisional liquidator was knowingly breached.

 Background