In certain circumstances, liquidators may be at risk of personal exposure to costs orders in litigation. 

The court’s approach to the making of costs orders against liquidators depends on (amongst other things) whether the liquidator is a named party to the proceedings, whether the liquidator is commencing or defending proceedings, and whether the liquidator has acted ‘improperly’ or unreasonably in the commencement, maintenance or defence of the action.

Proceedings commenced by the liquidator / company in liquidation

From 1 July 2018, reforms to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) will become effective including the addition of safe harbour laws and protections against ipso facto clauses.

If you've ever traded with a company that subsequently enters liquidation, you'll know that it can be very frustrating and disruptive to your business. If the company owes you money and you're an unsecured creditor, you'll join the (often long) line of other unsecured creditors and may see little or no money at the end of the process.

Just because a liquidator asserts you have received an unfair preference, does not necessarily mean you have or that there are no potential defences available to you.

Since the landmark decision in Re Solfire Pty Ltd (In Liq) (No. 2) [1999] 2 Qd R 182, the Queensland Supreme Court has often marched to its own tune when reviewing applications for insolvency practitioner remuneration and disbursements. In two related decisions arising from the insolvency of LM Investment Management and managed investment schemes of which it is responsible entity, the Court has now turned its attention to the controversies in this area over proportionality and access to trust assets with which its counterparts in New South Wales have grappled over the last 18 months.

On 19 October 2017, the Bankruptcy Amendment (Enterprise Incentives) Bill 2017 was introduced into Parliament by the Commonwealth Government in order to reduce the default period of bankruptcy from three years down to just one year. The stated objective of the Bill is “to foster entrepreneurial behaviour and reduce the stigma associated with bankruptcy whilst maintaining the integrity of the regulatory and enforcement frameworks for the personal insolvency regime.”

This week’s TGIF considers the decision of Simpson & Anor v Tropical Hire Pty Ltd (in liq) [2017] QCA 274 in which the Queensland Court of Appeal considered whether a disposition of property by a company after the commencement of its winding up was void

BACKGROUND

Mr Simpson was the sole director and shareholder of Tropical Hire Pty Ltd (company). It had operated a successful business until that business was sold in 2009. After the sale, the company did not trade.

From 1 July 2018, amendments to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) in the form of a new ‘ipso facto’ regime come into effect. The new amendments are part of the Federal Government’s commitment to assisting builders in financial distress.

Background

Significant reforms to Australia’s insolvency law introducing a “safe harbour” for directors who suspect their company may become or be insolvent have now commenced.

The Corporations Act imposes a duty on company directors to prevent a company from trading whilst insolvent. A director of a company can be personally liable for any debts incurred by a company trading whilst insolvent and might also have civil or criminal penalties imposed against them.

On 1 September 2017, the remaining parts of the new Insolvency Practice Schedule (IPS) introduced by the Insolvency Law Reform Act 2016 (Cth) as Schedule 2 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) commenced operation, including the provisions relating to "funds handling" contained in Division 65 of the IPS. These provisions apply to all "external administrations"1. including those that commenced prior to 1 September 20172.