The Federal Court of Australia in Kelly v Willmott Forests Ltd (in liquidation) (No 4) [2016] FCA 323 rejected an application for approval of settlement under s 33V of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), confirming that the Court’s role is akin to a ‘guardian’ for the group members.

Background

When pursuing outstanding owners corporation fees, suing the right person or entity at the right time is critical. 

If you get this wrong, you will not recover any money.

So, who is the owner?

Section 3 of Owners Corporations Act 2006 and the Subdivision Act 1988 state:

“an owner is a person who has an estate in fee simple in the land (except a mortgagee), or is empowered by or under an Act to convey an estate in fee simple in the land in an identified folio under the Transfer of Land Act 1958.”

On 29 April 2016, the Australian Government Treasury released a proposal paper that, among other things, proposed reforms to introduce an ipso facto moratorium (Proposal). This reform was foreshadowed in as part of the Australian Government’s National Innovation and Science Agenda.

In March 2013, four portable gas turbines worth about AU$50m had been leased to Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (Forge) by GE International Inc (GE) as lessor.  In February 2014 and March 2014 Forge was placed in administration and liquidation respectively.

The sole role of ICS, the company at issue in the recent decision of the New South Wales Supreme Court in In the matter of Independent Contractor Services (Aust) Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 106, was to be the trustee of the similarly named ICS Trust.  Previous litigation had confirmed that the trust was not a sham and that all ICS's assets were trust assets.  In the present decision, the judge held that all expenses incurred by ICS were expenses incurred as trustee, and therefore ICS (and the liquidator) had a right to be indemnified for those e

This week’s TGIF considers the decision of Crowe-Maxwell v Frost [2016] NSWCA 46 in which the Court held that a liquidator did not discharge his onus of proving relevant transactions were unreasonable director-related transactions.

BACKGROUND

Failure to comply with a statutory demand can have serious consequences for a company. Failure to properly advise on a statutory demand can also have serious consequences for a solicitor. Dixon J, in Dual Homes Pty Ltd v Moores Legal Pty Ltd and Anor, provides a timely reminder of the consequences that can flow from a failure to take proper action in response to a statutory demand.

This week’s TGIF considers the recent decision of the Federal Court which concerned the proper distribution of sale proceeds and whether those proceeds comprised part of the “property of the company”

WHAT HAPPENED?

Bamboo Direct Pty Limited (Bamboo), a company engaged in the business of purchasing and importing solar hot water heaters and solar panels, was placed into liquidation on 11 July 2012.

Key Points:

Although they should always keep time-frames very much in mind, the decision in BKA Practice Co Pty Ltd gives liquidators greater scope to find all possible time-frames in which they have to work.

CGU Insurance Limited v Blakeley [2016] HCA 2

Background

The High Court recently heard an appeal brought by CGU Insurance from a decision in the Supreme Court of Victoria, challenging a declaration that CGU was liable to indemnify Akron Roads Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (“Akron”) in interrelated proceedings.