On 14 May 2015, Australia acceded to the Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment (“Cape Town Convention”) and the Protocol to the Cape Town Convention (“Cape Town Protocol”). In particular, for insolvency related proceedings, Australia adopted what is known as “Alternative A” in aviation industry speak. The Cape Town Convention became effective as Australian law on 1 September 2015 and applies to the relevant aviation leasing and financing transitions entered into after that date.

Australia and the United States have much in common. We have a shared history, a common language, and a similar common law-based legal system governing a federated nation occupying a large land mass blessed with abundant natural and human resources. The United States is one of Australia’s greatest trading partners, and we welcome inward investment from the U.S. with most favoured nation trade terms. We also enjoy a friendship and strategic alliance that goes back over a century.

Ford (Administrator), in the matter of The PAS Group Ltd (Administrators Appointed) v Scentre Management Ltd [2020] FCA 1023

Factual background

Commercial landlords are exposed to a range of risks from the economic and social consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. One new risk to be confronted will come from the increased prevalence of rental deferrals and interaction with the Australian insolvency regime over ‘unfair preferences’.

Why is rent ‘protected’ in normal trading conditions?

Dominic Emmett and Hannah Cooper, Gilbert + Tobin

The Australian federal government, like many governments across the globe, has enacted temporary legislative changes to provide relief for businesses that have been impacted by the economic effects of the covid-19 pandemic. In order to facilitate continued business operations, the changes provide companies with breathing space to respond to demands from creditors for overdue debts and protect company directors from insolvent trading claims for debts incurred during the covid-19 period.

In Parbery & Ors v QNI Metals Pty Ltd & Ors[1] the Court held, amongst other things, that:

The "true employer" question is one which frequently arises in insolvencies of corporate groups, and it also arises in solvent workplace dispute scenarios. Answering it, however, is often hampered by inconsistent or incomplete records and very divergent returns for employees, depending on the outcome of the question.

The COVID-19 pandemic and the associated lock downs have led to a global economic slowdown, and Australia has been no exception. GDP fell by 0.3% in the March quarter, and on 3 June 2020 Treasurer Josh Frydenberg announced that Australia was officially in its first recession in 29 years.

While the Australian Government was quick to provide a range of economic support measures – having already spent $289bn or 14.6% of GDP in an attempt to keep the economy afloat – Treasury expects Australia's GDP will decline by 0.5% in 2019-20 and a further 2.5% in 2020-21.

In SJG Developments Pty Ltd v NT Two Nominees Pty Ltd (in liq),[1] the Supreme Court of Queensland set aside a statutory demand served by the liquidators of NT Two Nominees Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (NT Two Nominees) on SJG Developments Pty Ltd (SJG). Costs were awarded on the indemnity basis and more significantly, were also ordered against the liquidators personally.

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