As noted in a previous post about the Sakr case[1], the worth of the work done by a liquidator can be calculated in various

This week’s TGIF considers a decision of the Victorian Supreme Court which examined the merits of appointing special purpose liquidators in circumstances where a creditor was only willing to fund investigations if the appointment was made.

What happened?

In May and June 2016, two registered education and training organisations (together, the RTOs) were placed into liquidation.

The New South Wales Supreme Court of Appeal's decision in Sanderson as Liquidator of Sakr Nominees [1] has given cause for optimism amongst insolvency practitioners. The decision confirms that the correct approach was taken by the Court inIdylic Solutions [2], bucking a trend in recent years of limiting or reducing practitioner remuneration by reference to a proportion of the funds recovered.

WHO SHOULD READ THIS

• Restructuring and insolvency professionals.

THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW

• Understanding liabilities from a payroll tax perspective can be complex, particularly due to the broad nature of the grouping provisions.
• Unless care is taken situations may arise where restructuring and insolvency professionals will be grouped with client entities, potentially exposing personal entities to joint and several liability for client entity debts.

WHAT YOU NEED TO DO

A spate of recent decisions approving liquidators’ remuneration on an ad valorembasis had caused some trepidation amongst insolvency practitioners facing the prospect of court fee approval.

Court of Appeal sets the record straight

The key point

On March 9, 2017, a full bench of the New South Wales Court of Appeal handed down a significant decision affecting approach to judicial review and approval of liquidator remuneration. Significantly, existing tension between decisions of different judges at first instance, and between NSW and Federal courts, has been resolved.

A recent decision by the Federal Court of Australia may be useful for liquidators faced with an application to commence or continue civil proceedings against a company in liquidation.

The decision – in brief

When a lessee fails to comply with a notice to remedy a non-payment or other lease default, the lessor may be entitled to terminate the lease and retake possession of the property. This is commonly done by changing the locks.

However, a lessee who wants to save itself from being evicted can apply to court to prevent the lessor from retaking possession. In Queensland this application is made under section 124 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) and is known as an application for relief against forfeiture.

When is relief against forfeiture granted?

An insured company provided management consultancy services to Akron Roads Pty Ltd. In addition, the managing director of the insured company – Mr Crewe – acted as a director and as chairman, and sometimes as managing director, of Akron.

Court of Appeal sets the record straight

The key point 

Earlier today, a full bench of the New South Wales Court of Appeal handed down a significant decision affecting approach to judicial review and approval of liquidator remuneration. Significantly, existing tension between decisions of different judges at first instance, and between NSW and Federal courts, has been resolved.