InLongley v Chief Executive, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection [2018] QCA 32, the Queensland Court of Appeal has clarified the ability of liquidators to disclaim onerous property, including obligations that arise in respect of that property under State environmental legislation.

Employers are being warned that the days of expecting taxpayers to cover staff entitlements for failed businesses may soon be over, with company bosses potentially being held legally liable for the business’ unpaid dues.

Brisbane employment law expert Michael Coates says employers need to know that under proposed new laws, unpaid wages from a collapsed business could be recovered from related business entities that are not insolvent in circumstances where it is just and equitable (that is, “fair”) to do so. However what exactly is “fair” is yet to be determined.

This week’s TGIF considers some ways insolvency practitioners can make their lives easier by proactively using the courts to resolve uncertainty – such as liquidators seeking appointment as receivers of trust property as in the recent Federal Court decision of Freeman; In the matter of Blue Oasis Holdings Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 822.

WHAT HAPPENED?

Liquidators were appointed to the corporate trustee of a family trust.

In the recent court decision of Trenfield v HAG Import Corporation (Australia) Pty Ltd [2018] QDC 107, the liquidators recovered unfair preferences from a retention of title creditor who argued it was a secured creditor.

The issues

Ordinarily, a company entering liquidation is considered the commercial equivalent of “game over”, “checkmate”, “the end”, “K.O” or whatever other synonyms creditors can conjure up. This would be true for the most part because, at the end of the liquidation process, the company is usually deregistered and ceases to exist.

However, in some cases it is possible for the liquidator, a creditor or a “contributory” (member) of the company to apply to the Court for an order terminating the winding up. If made, this would return control of the company to the directors.

In this newsletter, we will explore how the new impending ipso facto reforms, which come into effect on 1 July 2018, could affect landlords under commercial leases or parties under other contractual arrangements.

What are the Ipso Facto Reforms?

The ipso facto reforms seek to prevent certain termination and other ipso facto rights under a contract from being enforced against a counterparty:

This week’s TGIF considers QBH Commercial Enterprises Pty Ltd (In liq)v Dalle Projects Pty Ltd & Ors [2018] VSC 171 in which the Court considered whether privilege can be waived by a director of a company in liquidation.

What happened?

QBH Commercial Enterprises (QBH) was placed into liquidation on 22 February 2018.

In late 2015, the High Court handed down its decision in Commissioner of Taxation v Australian Building Systems Pty Ltd (in liq) [2015] HCA 48. The High Court held (by a majority of 3:2) that, in the absence of an assessment, a liquidator is not required to retain funds from asset sale proceeds in order to meet a tax liability which could become payable as a result of a capital gain made on the sale. In doing so, the majority of the High Court affirmed the decision of the Full Federal Court and provided long awaited guidance to liquidators, receivers and administrators.

Introduction

The statutory demand is a formidable card up a creditor’s sleeve that can result in a company being deemed to be insolvent if it does not pay the creditor’s debt within 21 days of service of the demand. Whether a statutory demand served on an incorporated body other than an Australian company will be effective largely depends on the State or Territory in which the incorporated body is based and whether it is served pursuant to the correct section of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act).

What is a statutory demand?