The recent Supreme Court of Victoria decision in Re National Personnel Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2012] VSC 508 confirms that the Court will take a broad approach in determining the true employer where the employer-employee relationship is confused and the liquidator is in doubt as to the identification of the employer.
Background
Who should bear the risk and ultimately the financial burden of insolvent wrongdoers when determining the liability of defendants to a plaintiff? The defendants, or the plaintiff?
The Law Commission revisits this question in an Issues Paper, published last week, after recommending in 1998 to retain the traditional position.1
A creditor with assets in England should refrain from involvement in a foreign insolvency proceeding if it is at risk of being sued in the foreign court.
Courts are willing, in certain circumstances, to consider the commercial realities of voluntary administrations, and can be flexible.
In Saraceni v Mentha [No.2] [2012] WASC 336 a director sought to challenge the appointment of receivers to Westgem Investments Pty Ltd ("Westgem") under a fixed and floating charge ("the Charge"). In 2008 Westgem entered into a Facility Agreement with financiers and executed the Charge, which charged the "secured property".
The plaintiff contended that:
Before the recent decision in Rubin and another v Eurofinance SA and others and New Cap Reinsurance Corporation (In liq) and another v AE Grant [2012] UKSC 46 (the joint appeal of two earlier cases) (the Rubin/New Cap Appeal), an insolvency judgment obtained in an Australian court could be enforced in the UK despite falling outside of the traditional common law enforceability rules.
The Rubin/New Cap Appeal has now removed this special treatment afforded to foreign insolvency judgments and the old common law rules once again apply.
Australian banks have historically relied on formal liquidation, voluntary administration and receivership processes available under the under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and under general law where informal restructurings have failed. There has been little appetite for exploring alternative methods to exit distressed situations by debt trading.
On 1 December 2011 the Farm Debt Mediation Act 2011 (Vic) commenced operation. Under the Act, a farm debt mediation scheme is implemented which makes it compulsory for banks and other creditors to offer mediation to farmers before commencing debt recovery proceedings against the farmer on mortgages. Special Counsel, Jacqueline Browning discusses the scheme, which is about to mark its first anniversary of operation.
Key features
Some key features of the new Act (which in many ways mirrors similar legislation in NSW) are as follows:
A case this week in New South Wales involving a dispute between the residents of a retirement village and the operator of a retirement village reminded us of some of the issues that can arise when a village goes into liquidation.
The Federal Government has announced its intention to amend the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act) in response to the three-member panel's review of the FW Act in August this year, which we analysed in our earlier article.