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.

Introduction

In November 2016, the High Court of Australia heard a challenge brought by Clive Palmer in respect of the constitutional validity of the power of a liquidator to examine a former director of a company before the court. At the conclusion of that hearing, Kiefel J, as her Honour then was, stated that the Court was unanimously of the view that the challenge had failed and that reasons would be published later. Yesterday the High Court published those reasons.

The proceedings

This week’s TGIF considers In the matter of ACN 151 726 224 Pty Ltd (in liq) [2016] NSWSC 1801, where the Court dismissed a creditor’s application to remove liquidators who had refused to conduct public examinations of a director.

What happened?

On 18 November 2015, the District Court of New South Wales entered judgment against Ridley Capital Holdings Pty Limited (the Company) in the amount of $660,862.62.

This week’s TGIF considers the application of the principle in Re Universal Distributing and whether liquidators may claim an equitable lien to recover their costs and expenses, even if no assets are realised and no fund exists.

Background

In the recent Court of Appeal decision of Primary Securities Ltd v Willmott Forests Limited, liquidators had been appointed to an insolvent company which was the responsible entity of a managed investment forestry scheme.

Everything or Nothing! That is what the Queensland Court of Appeal has told us recently when it comes to assessing what a creditor is really owed for the purposes of standing to wind up a company

Background

A dispute arose between two parties involved in the management of Treadtel International Pty Ltd (Treadtel) whereby a Mr Cocco asserted that one of the two issued shares in Treadtel was held on trust for his benefit by the sole director’s wife, Mrs Crosher, because of an alleged share sale agreement.

In Suk v Hanjin Shipping Co Ltd [2016] FCA 1404, the Federal Court (a) provided guidance on how courts are to determine what stay arises upon recognition of foreign main proceedings under the Cross-Border Insolvency Act 2008; and (2) demonstrated that such recognition can cause maritime lien actions to be stayed.