The decision in Adhesive Pro Pty Ltd v Blackrock Supplies Pty Ltd [2015] ACTSC 288 reinforces the strict rule that an application to set aside a statutory demand must be filed and served within 21 days of receiving the demand.

Statutory demands are a common and useful tool for many unsecured creditors seeking payment of a debt.  Non-compliance with a statutory demand results in a presumption of insolvency and the possibility that a creditor can apply to wind up a company debtor.

When a company is deregistered, it ceases to exist.[1] So what happens when a person has a genuine claim against that company but fails to commence proceedings before it is deregistered?

The High Court of Australia in CGU Insurance Ltd v Blakeley & Ors [2016] HCA 2 unanimously confirmed that a third party can join a defendant’s insurer to a proceeding and seek a declaration of rights under the insurance agreement, provided that third party has a ‘real interest’ in the performance of the agreement and that there is practical utility in the court providing that declaration.

Key Points:

Complex cross-border issues can be dealt with relatively easily under the Cross-Border Insolvency Act as long as flexibility is built into the relevant orders.

Until now the 1981 English case of The Halcyon Isle has been the principle authority on maritime liens and conflict of laws in Anglo-Common law jurisdictions. In that case, which was on appeal from the Singapore courts, the majority of the Privy Council held that the recognition and enforcement of maritime liens were to be determined according to the law of the forum in which the proceedings were commenced (i.e. the lex fori).

The government's proposed changes to Australia's insolvency laws as part of the NISA are:  

Client alert 11 DECEMBER 2015 Contact us Visit our website Productivity Commission’s recommended changes to Australia’s insolvency laws The Productivity Commission published its final report on Business Set-up, Transfer and Closure on 7 December 2015. A copy of the final report is available here.

Yesterday the High Court handed down its decision in Commissioner of Taxation v Australian Building Systems Pty Ltd (in liq) [2015] HCA 48.  The High Court held (by a majority of 3:2) that, in the absence of an assessment, a liquidator is not required to retain funds from asset sale proceeds in order to meet a tax liability which could become payable as a result of a capital gain made on the sale.  In doing so, the majority of the High Court affirmed the decision of the Full Federal Court and provided long awaited guidance to liquidators, receivers and administrators.

A Singapore entity who had entered into a joint venture with an Indonesian entity brought suit in Singapore. The Indonesian entity owned shares in an Australian company. The Singapore entity made an ex parte application to the Supreme Court of Western Australia ("Supreme Court") to freeze the shareholding interests. The court granted the application, but the Court of Appeal dismissed the freezing order. The High Court reversed.

Key Points:

You can lead a director to the safe harbour, but you can't make him drink.

The Government's new approach to insolvency is long on rhetoric about risk taking and the need to remove the stigma of business failure.

However, it is short on detailed consideration of exactly why we have legal rules for corporate and personal insolvency.

Those rules aim to balance the interests of creditors against the need to encourage business start-ups.