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 Federal Magistrate’s decision in Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Oswal [2012] FMCA 1082 reminds us that leaving a jurisdiction does not mean leaving your business behind, including the business of paying debts.

Background

Mr Oswal guaranteed a loan of $27 million from the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) to Garuda Aviation Pty Ltd (Garuda) for the purchase of a jet plane.  Mr Oswal was, and remains, a director of Garuda.

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