CGU Insurance Limited v Blakeley & Ors [2016] HCA 2
The High Court of Australia has held unanimously1 that a person who commences proceedings against an insolvent company or a bankrupt individual can join that defendant’s insurer to the proceedings and seek a declaration that the insurer is liable to indemnify the defendant.
In a decision which potentially increases the assets available to liquidator and bankruptcy trustee plaintiffs, the High Court in CGU Insurance v Blakeley1 has recently determined that plaintiffs may seek to join insurers to proceedings in circumstances where indemnity under the insurance contract is denied and the defendants to the primary claim are bankrupt or being wound up or likely to become so as a result of the claim.
Vizcaya Partners Limited v Picard and another [2016] UKPC 5
Privy Council advice that addresses what is required for foreign judgements
Two critical components affecting liquidators have come out of Tuesday’s decision by Brereton J in the NSW Supreme Court.
CGU Insurance Limited v Blakeley [2016] HCA 2
Liquidators brought action against company directors under s 588M(2) of Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – Liquidators sought to join third party insurer after insurer denied liability – Supreme Court had jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief on liquidators’ application – Meaning of justiciable controversy
Australia is making several significant reforms to its insolvency legislation – with more changes likely to come – to provide much-needed comfort for directors and to align legislation on ipso facto clauses in order to prevent contractual terminations simply as a result of the commencement of an insolvency proceeding. (See the Productivity Commission Report on Business Set-up, Transfer and Closure (available here)).
History
On 1 May 2014, the Creditor commenced proceedings against the Debtor for a sequestration order against his estate in respect of unpaid legal costs awarded by the Magistrates Court of Western Australia.
Various preliminary issues protracted the case, including:
This week’s TGIF considers the decision of Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Currey in which the Court looks at whether a breach of clause 25.1 of the Code of Banking Practice renders a guarantee void or voidable.
BACKGROUND
A bank lent money to a family company, which was secured by personal guarantees provided by the applicants.
By its much anticipated yet hardly surprising judgment in Forge Group Power Pty Limited (in liquidation)(receivers and managers appointed) v General Electric International Inc [2016] NSWSC 52, the Supreme Court of New South Wales has again shone a bright light on the importance of perfection of security interests under the PPSA, and the dramatic consequences that follow for failing to do so by reason of the PPSA vesting rules. Indeed, the failure to register in this case has had multi-million dollar consequences.
Under the Corporations Act 2001, directors have a duty to prevent insolvent trading. They can be ordered to pay compensation, and can even be convicted of an offence, where their company trades while insolvent. The threshold is low in that the director need only have a suspicion that the company is insolvent for the duty to be engaged. Once triggered, the duty requires directors to take steps to prevent further debts being incurred by ceasing active trading or by placing the company into administration. If prevented from doing those things, the director needs to resign.