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.
The High Court of Australia recently dismissed an application brought by former Queensland Nickel Pty Ltd (QN) directors Mr Clive Palmer and Mr Ian Ferguson for a declaration that section 596A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) is constitutionally invalid.
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.
As you may recall, in 2013 ASIC wrote to all liquidators to announce the commencement of an industry-wide project to test all registered liquidators’ compliance with the requirement to publish certain notices on ASIC’s “published notices website” and to lodge forms with ASIC. ASIC refers to this initiative as the “PNW Project”.
A spate of recent decisions approving liquidators’ remuneration on an ad valorembasis had caused some trepidation amongst insolvency practitioners facing the prospect of court fee approval.
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?
A recent decision by the Federal Court of Australia may be useful for liquidators faced with an application to commence or continue civil proceedings against a company in liquidation.
The decision – in brief
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.
Liquidators can rest assured that courts are reluctant to interfere in their commercial judgments or permit liquidators to be personally exposed to mandatory examinations under s596ACorporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act).
Companies in distress often undertake a sales of assets to alleviate cash flow or debt repayment issues when other lines of credit or source of funds have been exhausted. Such decisions are not taken lightly, especially as the disposal of assets is likely to detrimentally impact the underlying business or forecasts. Ultimately creditors’ demands and survival instincts will result in action being taken however it is often too late and to the detriment of the business.