This week's TGIF considers In the matter of Intellicomms Pty Ltd (in liq) [2022] VSC 228, in which Associate Justice Gardiner found that a Sale Agreement disposing of key assets to a related entity on the day of appointment of liquidators constituted a creditor-defeating disposition and therefore able to be set aside.

Key takeaways

Introduction

In the recent case of Trinity Concept Ltd (In Liq) v Wong Kung Sang (黃共生) [2022] 1 HKLRD 1388, the Court of First Instance (“Court”) dismissed the defendant’s application to strike out a claim for an account on the ground that the action was not commenced within the six-year limitation period under section 20(2) of the Limitation Ordinance (Cap. 347 of the Laws of Hong Kong) (“LO”).

Background

簡介

最近在Trinity Concept Ltd (In Liq) v Wong Kung Sang (黃共生) [2022] 1 HKLRD 1388一案中，原告人提出申索，要求被告人交代帳目。被告人以有關訴訟沒有在《時效條例》（香港法例第347章）第20(2) 條訂明的六年訴訟時效內提出為由，申請剔除原告人的申索，但被原訟法庭（「法院」）駁回。

背景

Trinity Concept Ltd（「原告人」）是一間正在清盤的公司，它控告其兩名前董事（「被告人」）違反受信責任，向第三方作出合共139筆付款而沒有妥當解釋（「可疑交易」）。原告人請求法院頒令被告人交代帳目，並在製備帳目後交出結欠的資產或付款，或命令被告人作出衡平法補償。被告人認為可疑交易距離令狀發出已超過六年，因此本案已喪失訴訟時效，應根據《時效條例》第4(2) 條予以駁回。

裁決

法院指出下列與剔除申請有關的重要問題：

简介

最近在Trinity Concept Ltd (In Liq) v Wong Kung Sang (黄共生) [2022] 1 HKLRD 1388一案中，原告人提出申索，要求被告人交代账目。被告人以有关诉讼没有在《时效条例》（香港法例第347章）第20(2) 条订明的六年诉讼时效内提出为由，申请剔除原告人的申索，但被原讼法庭（「法院」）驳回。

背景

Trinity Concept Ltd（「原告人」）是一间正在清盘的公司，它控告其两名前董事（「被告人」）违反受信责任，向第三方作出合共139笔付款而没有妥当解释（「可疑交易」）。原告人请求法院颁令被告人交代账目，并在制备账目后交出结欠的资产或付款，或命令被告人作出衡平法补偿。被告人认为可疑交易距离令状发出已超过六年，因此本案已丧失诉讼时效，应根据《时效条例》第4(2) 条予以驳回。

裁决

法院指出下列与剔除申请有关的重要问题：

This week’s TGIF considers In the matter of Spitfire Corporation Limited (in liquidation) and Aspirio Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2022] NSWSC 579 in which liquidators sought an order that a non-party creditor pay their legal costs for seeking directions from the Court.

Key Takeaways

This week's TGIF considers Stubbings v Jams 2 Pty Ltd [2022] HCA 6, in which the High Court overturned a finding by the Victorian Court of Appeal and confirmed that certificates of independent advice will not always protect lenders from an unconscionability claim.

This week’s TGIF considers the recent Queensland Supreme Court decision in CGS Constructions (Qld) Pty Ltd [2022] QSC 28 where it dismissed an application to restrain liquidators from engaging the same solicitors as a major creditor to conduct public examinations.

Key Takeaways

This week’s TGIF considers an interlocutory decision of Ball J in the NSW Supreme Court in Aqua Botanical Beverages (Australia) Pty Ltd v Botanical Water Technologies Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 435, in which the Court dismissed an application to add an oppression claim where the company went into liquidation after commencing proceedings.

Key Takeaways

This week’s TGIF considers In the matter of Jabiru Satellite Limited (in liq) and NewSat Limited (in liq) [2022] NSWSC 459 where the Court declined to appoint a special purpose liquidator to pursue claims available to the company.

Key Takeaways

簡介

最近在Re Klimvest plc [2022] EWHC 596 (Ch) 一案中，英國高等法院（「法院」）基於一個比較罕見的理由頒令將一家上市公司清盤——失去公司基礎（loss of substratum），即公司放棄其主要宗旨和目的。

背景

Klimvest Plc（「該公司」）於2019年1月出售其業務及資產，其後其唯一重大資產為約800萬英鎊的現金儲備。出售資產後，該公司的最大股東Klimt Invest SA（「第一答辯人」）要求該公司動用出售所得款項作出新投資，而非將在清盤中分派予股東。

Eric Duneau先生（「呈請人」）要求根據英國《1986年無力償債法》第122(1)(g) 條頒令該公司清盤，認為由於該公司已失去其目的或基礎，將該公司清盤屬公正公平。第一答辯人反對呈請，辯稱（其中包括）該公司並無失去其目的或基礎，因為該公司在出售資產前實質上已成為一間控股投資公司，公司的目的仍可透過該投資實現。

失去公司基礎的測試