It is well known that a company served with a statutory demand has 21 days to comply. If the recipient fails to pay the amount of the demand (or obtain a court order extending the period for compliance) within the period of 21 days after the demand is served, the creditor may rely on the failure as a basis to apply for the company to be wound up in insolvency. But what if the company pays, or seeks to pay, the amount of the statutory demand after the 21 day period has expired?

Like many areas of insolvency law, statutory demands have strict procedural requirements as to the timing by which documents must be served. But how is the passage of time calculated? If something is required to be done "21 days after" a document is served, is this intended to be inclusive or exclusive of the day the document was served? The Supreme Court of NSW recently grappled with this issue in Verimark Pty Ltd v Passiontree Velvet Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 455 and has provided clarity for lawyers and insolvency practitioners alike.

The decision of the High Court of Australia in Ramsay Health Care Australia Pty Ltd v Compton [2017] HCA 28; 261 CLR 132 (Ramsay) clarified the limits of a Bankruptcy Court's discretion to "go behind" a judgment, that is, to investigate whether the underlying debt relied upon for the making of a sequestration order is, in truth and reality, owing to the petitioning creditor. Recently, the Ramsay decision was applied by the Federal Court of Australia in Dunkerley v Comcare [2019] FCA 1002 (Dunkerley).

In Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB v Conway & another [2019] UKPC 36, the Privy Council upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal of the Cayman Islands that the appellant bank, SEB, was required to repay redemption payments held to be preferences notwithstanding that it had received the funds in the capacity of nominee, and had already distributed the funds to the beneficiaries without any ability to recover them.

Facts

On 19 June 2019, the much-anticipated High Court appeal in the matter of Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth [2019] HCA 20 (also known as the "Amerind appeal") was handed down.

Hsin Chong Construction Company Limited [2019] 原诉法庭 1531 (判决日期2019年6月13日)

合资企业协议通常会包含如下条款：在发生特定事件（包括违约方破产）时，赋予无过错方将违约方排除在合资企业之外的权利。本案中，法庭对该类条款是否无效进行了考虑。

背景介绍

2013年11月，Hsin Chong Construction Company Limited (以下简称“该公司”)与Build King Construction Limited （以下简称“Build King”）签订了一份合资企业协议（“合资企业协议”）并成立了一家非法人型合资企业（“合资企业”），目的是向香港一个政府建设项目（“该项目”）提交投标。该公司和Build King在合资企业中持有的权益分别为65%和35%。香港政府于2016年6月22日将该合同授予给了该合资企业。

该公司于2017年陷入财务困境，并于2018年8月27日面临清盘的命运。

2018年12月13日，Build King行使了其在合资协议下的权利，以该公司破产为由，将该公司从合资企业中排除（“排除条款”）。

Liquidators are encouraged to seek advice or directions from the Court as to the discharge of their responsibilities. But who bears the costs of such proceedings, of the liquidator and of any contradictor involved?

In the recent case of In the matter of Gondon Five Pty Limited and Cui Family Asset Management Pty Limited [2019] NSWSC 469, the New South Wales Supreme Court (Brereton J) considered the purpose and scope of an appointment as receiver to a company, and came down particularly hard on an insolvency practitioner for performing work and incurring expenses which were determined to be outside, or not incidental to, the scope of his appointment.

Background

Re Kaoru Takamatsu – [2019] HKCFI 802 (date of judgment 25 March 2019)

For the first time the Hong Kong Court has recognised a Japanese winding up proceeding and granted assistance to a bankruptcy trustee appointed by the Japanese Court.

Background

On 1 March 2018, the District Court of Tokyo, Twentieth Civil Division (“Tokyo Court”) ordered Japan Life Co, Ltd (“Japan Life”) to be wound up and appointed Mr Kaoru Takamatsu as trustee in bankruptcy.

有关Kaoru Takamatsu – [2019] HKCFI 802一案 (判决日期2019年3月25日)

香港法庭首次认可日本清盘程序，并向日本法庭委任的破产管理人提供援助。

背景介绍

于2018年3月1日，东京地区裁判法院民事诉讼第20支部向Japan Life Co, Ltd (以下简称“Japan Life”) 颁发清盘令，并委任Kaoru Takamatsu先生为破产管理人。

Takamatsu先生需要获取Japan Life在瑞穗银行及汇丰银行的香港分行所持有的银行账户记录。于是，Takamatsu先生寻求香港法庭的认可和援助，以获得该账户的记录，并处理Japan Life在香港的相关事务。

判定和原则