Hughes v Pluton Resources Ltd [2017] WASCA 213

This case concerned the application of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (the PPSA) to funds held by a company in liquidation following the termination of a DOCA. In the course of its decision, the Court considered the meaning of various provisions of the PPSA, including:

Introduction

Does a potential administrator’s involvement in pre-administration contingency planning give rise to a conflict of interest, such that the potential administrator should be disqualified from accepting the formal appointment?

Korda, in the matter of Ten Network Holdings Ltd (Administrators Appointed) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2017] FCA 914

Seeking directions from the Court in the period 1 March to 1 September 2017 – what are liquidators and administrators to do?

What is a freezing order?

The purpose of a freezing order is to preserve the defendant's assets until judgment can be enforced. It operates by granting an injunction prohibiting the defendant (or anyone on his behalf) from disposing of identified assets. Legally, it does not operate as security over the assets.

Taylor v Van Dutch Marine Holding Ltd

Justice Robson has delivered his decision on an application by receivers and managers for directions as to, among other things, their obligations to pay preferential debts under the Corporations Act from the surplus generated by their trading-onof a business and other recoveries by their appointing bank.

A Court of Appeal judgment held that a company must have a settled intention to appoint an administrator when filing a notice of intent (NOI) under paragraph 26 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 (“Schedule B1”) . The court also confirmed that an NOI cannot be filed in the absence of a qualifying floating charge holder (QFCH) on which to serve the notice.

Is a “stay of enforcement” of a judgment within the meaning of s 15(2) of the Foreign Judgments Act brought about by s 58(3) of the Bankruptcy Act?

Talacko v Bennett [2017] HCA 15, 3 May 2017

In the recent case of South Coast Construction v Iverson Road Limited [2017] EWHC 61 (TCC), South Coast Construction ("South Coast") had obtained an adjudicator’s decision against the employer, Iverson Road Limited (“Iverson Road”), in a sum approaching £900,000. Iverson Road refused to pay the award so South Coast commenced enforcement proceedings in the Technology and Construction Court (TCC).

As noted in a previous post about the Sakr case[1], the worth of the work done by a liquidator can be calculated in various