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?

You will have previously seen a landlord's consent is usually required to enable a pharmacist to assign or sell their lease to a third party.

It is usual for the landlord's consent to be specified not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed.

On a lease assignment a landlord will want to ensure that the tenant is of sufficient financial strength to be able to comply with the lease covenants (including payment of the rent).

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.

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.

On 30 September 2016, the Competition and Markets Authority (“CMA”) published its finding that two companies involved in the online retail of licensed sport and entertainment posters and frames had breached the Competition Act 1998 (“CA98”) by entering into agreements (or, at least, ‘concerted practices’) to artificially inflate the prices charged for certain products. A formal charge was accepted by the main protagonist, Trod Limited (in administration) (“Trod”) and fines imposed, which became payable by Trod’s administrators as of 13 October 2016.

Horton v Henry: Pensions clarified

We previously discussed the uncertainty surrounding the treatment of pensions in a bankruptcy which arose from two conflicting high court decisions: Raithatha v Williamson [2012] EWHC 909 (Ch) and Horton v Henry [2014] EWHC 4209 (Ch).

In Hinton v Wotherspoon [2016] EWHC 623 (CH) (where this firm successfully represented the trustee in bankruptcy, Lloyd Hinton of Insolve Plus Limited), the court commented that the approach in Horton v Henry [2014] EWHC 4209 (Ch) was “plainly correct”.