The High Court has held that there is no common law rule preventing enforcement of a foreign judgment in England and Wales simply because it is not presently or fully enforceable in the relevant foreign jurisdiction.

In this week’s TGIF, we examine the recent case of Mandalinic v Stone (Liquidator) [2023] FCAFC 146 which provides useful guidance as to the ability of a director to challenge an insolvent company’s PAYG liability.

Key takeaways

In this week’s TGIF, we consider Morgan & Ors v McMillan Investment Holdings Pty Ltd & Anor [2023] HCATrans 122, a decision to grant special leave, paving the way for the High Court to clarify the law with respect to pooling orders.

Key takeaways

In this week’s TGIF, we consider ASIC v Bettles [2023] FCA 975 and ASIC v Jones [2023] WASCA 130, two cases which bring into focus the conduct of insolvency practitioners and alleged abrogation of their duties and independence.

Key takeaways

When a company is in the so-called “twilight zone” approaching insolvency, it is well-established that the directors’ fiduciary duties require them to take into account interest of creditors (the so-called “creditor duty”).

In a recent case, the High Court has had one of its first opportunities to consider BTI v Sequana [2022] UKSC 25 (see our previous update here), in which the Supreme Court gave important guidance on the existence and scope of the duty of company directors to have regard to the interests of creditors (the so-called “creditor duty”, which arises in an insolvency scenario).

The judgement raises important questions for directors faced with substantial liabilities

When do amounts owed to a company constitute ‘circulating assets’ and how should they be distributed? This crucial question has not always been answered predictably in recent cases. The Court of Appeal’s decision in Resilient Investment Group Pty Ltd v Barnet and Hodgkinson as liquidators of Spitfire Corporation Limited (in liq) [2023] NSWCA 118 has provided a framework for navigating the relevant principles in the context of a priority dispute over R&D tax refunds.

Key takeaways

The Federal Court of Australia recently determined an application brought by the administrators of a company in voluntary administration seeking judicial guidance on how to deal with claims for costs and interests resulting from two prior arbitrations. The key issue was whether the costs and interests awarded in the previous arbitrations were admissible to proof in the administration of the company, having regard to the fact that the relevant arbitral awards were made after the appointment of administrators.

The Court made a distinction between the two arbitrations as follows:

In this week’s TGIF, we consider Hutton, in the matter of Caydon Flemington Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers appointed) (In liq) [2023] FCA 796, a Federal Court decision concerning the grant of an extension after the ‘critical time’ for the vesting of a security interest.

Key takeaways