On 16 January 2015, Justice Beech, of the Supreme Court of Western Australia, handed down his decision in the matters of Hamersley HMS Pty Ltd v Davis [2015] WASC 14 and Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v James [2015] WASC 10 (the Hamersley Decisions). In both matters, Hamersley sought to set aside determinations made by an adjudicator pursuant to the Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA) (CCA) and Forge Group Construction Pty Ltd (In Liq) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (Forge) sought leave to enforce the determinations.

Key Points:

Principals or contractors dealing with insolvent downstream companies should ensure they can properly substantiate any counterclaims.

Usually a principal is not entitled to rely on a set-off or counterclaim to resist court proceedings to recover a debt under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 (Vic) (SOP Act). However because of the operation of section 553C of the Corporations Act, the situation is different if the claimant is in liquidation.

Insolvent subcontractor’s claim

The Senate has announced a national inquiry into insolvency in the Australian construction industry (Inquiry).^[1] 

A recent decision by Justice Beech of the Western Australian Supreme Court in Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v James [2015] WASC 10[1] has considered the issue of whether an adjudication determination made under the Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA) (the Construction Contracts Act) can be enforced by an insolvent company.

SUMMARY

The FSI Report has recommended that Government should consult with relevant stakeholders to consider the introduction of 'safe harbour' provisions for directors engaged in restructuring efforts, and the suspension of ipso facto clauses during a restructuring.

Minter Ellison supports reform in both of these areas.

Australia's insolvent trading laws are among the strictest of any country. A director may become personally liable for new debts that are incurred by the company, if the director has reason to 'suspect' insolvency.

Debts claimed in statutory demands must be due and payable to the creditor named in the statutory demand.

When disputing statutory demands it is common for debtor companies to argue an offsetting claim, so as to reduce or extinguish the amount claimed in the statutory demand.

For there to be a valid offsetting claim there must be ‘mutuality’, meaning that the legal capacities in which both the offsetting claim and the statutory demand debt are each claimed and owed must align.

On 11 December 2014, Justice Croft of the Victorian Supreme Court delivered judgment approving the settlement of multiple class actions brought by investors in managed investment schemes operated by an entity of the agribusiness Great Southern Group in 2005 and 2006.

"Once in a generation" review

Shortly before the Christmas break, the much anticipated review of the United States "Chapter 11 bankruptcy" regime was published by the American Bankruptcy Institute (ABI). This is one of very few such major "root and branch" reviews of Chapter 11 since its enactment in 1978, and the first since the 1990s.

Liquidators and Trustees in Bankruptcy - Claw-Back

Sometimes service providers feel that they should not get involved to assist financially troubled clients obtain work-out or insolvency advice in fear that if their client goes into liquidation or bankruptcy that the WIP and/or fees/costs paid may be lost or "clawed back" by a liquidator because of an unfair preference claim.

The latest statistics on insolvency appointments and companies entering external administration have been released, based on data gathere