The Personal Property Securities Register (“PPSR”) has operated for several years, but defective registrations remain a (sometimes serious) problem for many of those looking to protect their interests. Unlike with real property, the PPSR has no title registrars who will requisition faulty forms. The responsibility for noticing mistakes lies with the party attempting to protect their interests.

A recent decision of the High Court has ended an insurer’s fight to avoid being joined to insolvent trading proceedings. This decision confirms the ability of liquidators to directly pursue proceeds of insurance policies held by insolvent insured defendant directors and has important ramifications for insolvency practitioners as well as insurers and litigation funders.

Summary

In the matter of Fat 4 Pty Limited (In Liquidation)

A recent case in the Supreme Court of Victoria has provided some relief for liquidators seeking to add a defendant to a voidable transaction claim after the expiry of the limitation period in circumstances where the wrong defendant was sued by mistake. In such circumstances, liquidators can substitute the incorrect party for the desired defendant without being time barred by s 588FF(3) of the Corporations Act, irrespective of whether the liquidator’s mistake as to the correct party was reasonable.

On 29 February 2016, the Insolvency Law Reform Bill 2015 received Royal Assent. The resulting Act, the Insolvency Law Reform Act 2016 (Cth) represents the most significant suite of reforms to Australia’s bankruptcy and corporate insolvency laws in twenty years and is an integral component of the Federal Government’s agenda of improving economic incentives for innovation and entrepreneurialism.

In a decision handed down on 11 February 2016, the High Court has confirmed that the State Supreme Courts have jurisdiction to grant relief to plaintiffs seeking to join insurers of insolvent or potentially insolvent defendants, and a declaration that the insurer is liable to indemnify the defendant. 

Introduction

Tamaya Resources Limited (In Liq) v Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu [2016] FCAFC 2

It is common in large complex cases for plaintiffs to seek to amend their claims during the course of the litigation. A plaintiff may be required to pay the costs thrown away but if its amendment application was brought in good faith and with a proper explanation, it would usually be able to amend its claim.

The Grand Court of the Cayman Islands has held that depositor protection provisions in Cayman Islands law only apply in respect of depositors with deposits of CI$20,000 (US$24,400) or less.¹  Depositors with more than CI$20,000 on deposit do not benefit from such provisions at all, even for their first CI$20,000.  This means that, for persuasive policy reasons, the position in the Cayman Islands differs from the position in the EU under the deposit guarantee scheme.

On 14 July 2015, the South Australian District Court in Matthews v The Tap Inn Pty Ltd [2015] SADC 108 handed down a decision whose underlying reasoning could, if applied by superior courts around Australia, broaden the scope for liquidators to pursue unfair preference claims against secured creditors.

The decision

At this stage of Ireland's economic cycle, in many cases obtaining a court judgment against a debtor does not necessarily ensure payment. If the judgment debtor fails to pay, there are several procedures available to a judgment creditor to attach the judgment debtor's assets and income so as to obtain payment (a process broadly termed 'execution'). In order to make such an application, the judgment creditor must of course have some knowledge of and information about the particular asset or income.

As we approach the end of 2015, now is the time to start planning the liquidation of Cayman Islands entities that have reached the end of their life cycle to ensure that unnecessary 2016 fees are not incurred.