In Berryman v Zurich Australia Ltd [2016] WASC 196 it was decided that a bankrupt's entitlement to claim a TPD benefit under a life insurance policy is not an entitlement that is divisible amongst the bankrupt's creditors, and therefore such an entitlement does not vest in the Official Trustee in bankruptcy. Tottle J of the Supreme Court of Western Australia ruled that the bankrupt insured could continue an action in his own name to recover the TPD benefit. Life insurers may need to adjust their claims' payment practices in light of the Berryman decision.
A liquidator has many competing duties and pressures in the performance of their role. Can the failure to make a simple phone call be a breach of those duties?
The decision in In the matter of Independent Contractor Services (Aust) could mean more reliance upon fair entitlements guarantee funding provided by the Commonwealth in relation to the liquidation of trading trusts.
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:
In Australian Securities & Investment Commission v Planet Platinum Ltd [2016] VSC 120, the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) sought, and was granted, a declaration from the Supreme Court of Victoria that the appointment of the administrator of Planet Platinum Ltd (Planet Platinum) was invalid and of no effect.
In the matter of Fat 4 Pty Limited (In Liquidation)
A recent case in the Supreme Court of Victoria has provided some relief for liquidators seeking to add a defendant to a voidable transaction claim after the expiry of the limitation period in circumstances where the wrong defendant was sued by mistake. In such circumstances, liquidators can substitute the incorrect party for the desired defendant without being time barred by s 588FF(3) of the Corporations Act, irrespective of whether the liquidator’s mistake as to the correct party was reasonable.
Snapshot
This week’s TGIF considers In the matter of Blue Sennar Air Pty Ltd (in liq); In the matter of Eye Plantain Pty Ltd (in liq) [2016] NSWSC 772 in which the Court clarified the rights of a liquidator to disclaim “unprofitable contracts” pursuant to section 568(1A) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).
WHAT HAPPENED?
On 14 May 2015, the defendant liquidator was appointed administrator of Eye Plantain Pty Ltd (Eye Plantain). He became liquidator of Eye Plantain shortly thereafter.