In Carey v Korda [2012] WASCA 228, the Supreme Court of Western Australia Court of Appeal confirmed the rights of receivers to claim legal professional privilege.  A little over a year ago, we considered the first instance judgment in a previous TGIF article. 

THE BACKGROUND FACTS

A recent High Court judgment illustrates potential issues when the same liquidator(s) are appointed to Australian and New Zealand companies.

Australian liquidators were appointed to the Cedenco group of companies, two of which were New Zealand companies and three Australian. They sought orders requiring delivery of documents and for the companies’ relationship manager at ANZ to attend for a second examination. One of the arguments against this was that the New Zealand companies' creditors were likely to be paid in full.

Residential aged care has recently been in the news for all the wrong reasons, with headlines due to the particularly heavy impact of COVID-19 on this sector, the interim findings of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety and the alarming declaration by Leading Age Services Australia that a pre-COVID-19 accounting review indicating that almost 200 nursing homes housing some 50,000 people were operating at an unacceptably high risk of insolvency – a finding supported by the recently released report by the Aged Care Financing Authority (ACFA) which found “near

Australia has now entered its first recession in 29 years, and the Australian Government has implemented a number of legislative reforms and other initiatives to support and provide temporary relief to businesses, including stimulus payments, enhanced asset write-off and flexibility in the application of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

Summary

In Carey v Korda [2012] WASCA 228, the Western Australian Supreme Court of Appeal (Court) has provided a timely confirmation that legal advisers engaged by receivers to provide advice in relation to a receivership are properly viewed as advisers to the receivers as principal, and not the mortgagor company.

The decision will no doubt be welcomed by insolvency practitioners, as it confirms that the legal advice, and the right to invoke the associated privilege, belongs to the receivers, not the mortgagor company.

The recent Federal Court of Australia (Court) decision in KASH Aboriginal Corporation ICN 108 (Administrators Appointed) No 2 [2012] FCA 789 confirms that an administrator of a company who acts honestly and reasonably may be protected from personal liability for any debts incurred while carrying out an administration.

Background

The evidence before the court established that:

In a recent decision[1] the Supreme Court of Western Australia was asked, pursuant to section 447A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), to appoint a special purpose administrator to cure a perceived conflict of interest between a company (in administration) and the original administrator appointed to the company.

Changes to the Listing Rules and further consultation on enhancing the effectiveness of the regime

On 31 August 2012, the Full Federal Court handed down its much awaited decision in Commissioner of Taxation v Kassem and Secatore [2012] FCAFC 124 which provides clarification regarding third party preference payments received by the ATO and the practice of the ATO appropriating payments made by taxpayers from one account (ie the integrated client account) to another (ie the superannuation guarantee account - SGER).

Summary

The main points to take away from this case are as follows: