Fulltext Search

According to the latest statistics from the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), the construction industry has faced sustained and accelerating financial distress over the past four years. Since FY 2021-2022, the number of insolvency appointments has almost tripled, with nearly 4,900 cases in FY 2024-2025 alone. And, the 744 cases already recorded for FY 2025-2026 indicate the construction industry continues to suffer severe financial distress.

Inthe matter of Trinco (NSW) Pty Ltd (in liq) [2025] NSWSC 993, the New South Wales Supreme Court found Mr Azizi to be a de facto director of Trinco (NSW) Pty Ltd (in liq) (Trinco) and liable for insolvent trading. Trinco’s liquidator was awarded compensation, payable by Mr Azizi.

The High Court of Australia (being Australia’s highest court) refused special leave to appeal the Full Federal Court’s decision inCEG Direct Securities Pty Ltd v Cooper (as liquidator)[2025] FCAFC 47. The Court held that the Full Court’s decision turned on the application of the relevant provision to the particular facts of that case and did not raise any broader question of principle.

Introduction

In this first instalment of our insights series on construction insolvency, Ironbridge Legal outlines key red flags to look for and practical steps to manage counterparty risk.

An Industry at Risk - With Contagion Potential

Introduction

In December 2024, Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) released an updated version of Regulatory Guide RG 217. The guidance is designed to assist directors in complying with their duty to prevent insolvent trading. It sets out four key principles for directors to avoid insolvent trading, explains the safe harbour defence (which offers protection from personal liability), and clarifies ASIC’s approach to assessing breaches of duty and the application of the safe harbour defence.

简介

最近在Re Guy Kwok-Hung Lam [2023] HKCFA 9一案中,香港终审法院澄清,如果受争议的呈请债务所涉及的协议载有专属司法管辖权条款(「专属条款」),法院应如何处理清盘及破产呈请。

案情

上诉人于2017年与CP Global Inc(「该公司」)及答辩人订立了一份信贷及担保协议(「信贷协议」)。据此,上诉人向该公司提供定期贷款,答辩人就该公司结欠上诉人的所有款项提供个人担保。信贷协议载有专属条款,就该协议所产生或与之有关的所有法律程序赋予纽约法院专属司法管辖权。

于2020年,上诉人认为发生了信贷协议所指的违约事件,故要求答辩人支付信贷协议项下的未偿还本金及利息。答辩人未有按上诉人的要求还款,因此上诉人在香港针对答辩人展开破产法律程序。另一方面,答辩人在纽约提起诉讼,请求法院求宣告并无发生信贷协议下的违约事件。

答辩人反对在香港提出破产呈请的主要理由之一,是专属条款规定上诉人须首先在纽约法院就双方争议进行诉讼,然后才可在香港展开破产程序。

Introduction

In the latest judgment handed down by the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal in Re Guy Kwok-Hung Lam [2023] HKCFA 9, the Court of Final Appeal clarified the approach to winding up and bankruptcy petitions where the agreement from which the disputed petition debt arose contains an exclusive jurisdiction clause (“EJC”).

Facts