When serving an application to set aside a statutory demand interstate, the strict modes prescribed by SEPA trump service under the Corporations Act (or any mode of informal effective service which might otherwise suffice). Practitioners forgetting this may face a rather abrupt conclusion to proceedings.
The High Court of Australia has now had the final say in the ongoing saga of the restaurant tenant who leased premises at Crown and was told that if it carried out high quality refurbishments of the premises, then it would be ‘looked after at renewal time’. When it came to the expiry of the term of the lease, the landlord required the tenant to vacate the premises.
Legal principles
The importance of security holders accurately registering their interest on the Personal Property Securities Register (PPSR) to create a valid, enforceable interest is constantly emphasised in commentary and cases. It is accepted that an error in a grantor’s identifier is likely to be fatal to a PPSR registration1, often resulting in a creditor’s unperfected interest vesting in a company upon it entering administration or liquidation. However, a recent decision of the New South Wales Supreme Court illustrates that a defective registration may be cured without losing priority.
A recent decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal (handed down on 14 July 2016) highlights a number of areas in which conflicts can arise in a commercial transaction involving multiple secured parties and the extent to which the interests of lower-ranked secured parties need to be considered when the proceeds are dealt with.
The case - Nom de Plume
A problem often faced by creditors is how to recover unsecured judgment debts. If a debtor owns real property, there is a mechanism available through the Courts to have the debt registered against the property and the sheriff's office sell the property to satisfy the judgment debt.
The Supreme Court of Victoria recently ruled inFreelance Global Limited (in liq) v Bensted and Ors [2016] VSC 181 that liquidators of corporate trustees are entitled to have their
The Australian Court of Appeal refused an appeal against a winding up order made in relation to Legend in Australia where Chapter 11 proceedings were on foot in the United States.
Legend International Holdings Inc ("Legend"), registered in Delaware in the United States, were unsuccessful in defending a claim brought by the IFF which resulted in an award of $12.35 million plus interest. As payment was not received, the IFF filed a Winding Up Petition against Legend in Australia.
The Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) specifies the circumstances in which a bankrupt is entitled to continue prosecuting legal proceedings after a sequestration order has been made. Sections 60 and 116 of the Act allow a bankrupt to continue with their proceedings if the proceedings are “in respect of any personal injury or wrong done to” the bankrupt.
This week’s TGIF considers Legend International Holdings Inc (In Liquidation) v Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative Ltd & Kisan International Trading FZE [2016] VSCA 151 in which it was held that s 581 does not prohibit a winding up order where Chapter 11 proceedings are on foot.
What happened?
In Berryman v Zurich Australia Ltd [2016] WASC 196, the Supreme Court of Western Australia held a bankrupt, Berryman, was able to maintain legal action in his own name, claiming TPD insurance benefits from Zurich.
The Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) relevantly provides: