Division 65 and the New Strict Liability Regime

As part of the significant reforms to insolvency and bankruptcy laws introduced by the Insolvency Law Reform Act 2016 (ILRA), parliament has sought to condense and simplify the requirement for external administrators to avoid conflicts of interest.

Whether you are a liquidator, director, employee, shareholder or creditor of a company in financial distress, the experience of a corporate insolvency is usually not pleasant. Directors face the threat of being investigated for breaches of directors duties, employees become unemployed, shareholders become the owners of worthless assets and creditors are forced to come to the realisation that they will never see the money owed to them (or at least not all of it).

We all know that Australians have an unhealthy obsession with owning their own home. And with house prices surging over the past 5 years there is every right to be obsessed. But why sacrifice so much to purchase your dream home only to watch it fall into the hands of creditors?

The recent decision of Markovic J in Robert Kite and Mark Hutchins in their capacity as liquidators of Mooney’s Contractors Pty Ltd (in liq) & Anor v Lance Mooney & Anor [2017] FCA 653 in the Federal Court of Australia provides practitioners with further clarification of the requirements when insolvency practitioners are appointed to companies which operate as corporate trustees. 

KEY TAKE-HOMES FOR INSOLVENCY PRACTITIONERS

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

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.

Back in March 2017 the NSW Court of Appeal handed down the unanimous decision in Sanderson as Liquidator of Sakr Nominees Pty Ltd (in liq) v Sakr [2017] NSWCA 38 (Sakr), reigning in Brereton J’s application of proportionality to liquidator’s remuneration. This week the decision of in the matter of Australian Company Number 074 962 628 Pty Ltd (in liq) (formerly Colonial Staff Super Pty Ltd) [2017] NSWSC 370 (Colonial Super) was handed down by the NSW Supreme Court. The decision is notable as one of the first applications of the principles enunciated in the Sakr decision. 

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).

On 9 March 2017 the NSW Court of Appeal handed down its decision in Sanderson as Liquidator of Sakr Nominees Pty Ltd (in liquidation) v Sakr [2017] NSWCA 38, unanimously allowing the liquidator’s appeal against a decision of Brereton J applying principles of proportionality and ad valorum to reduce the liquidator’s outstanding remuneration from the $63,000 claimed by the liquidator to $20,000.