The government has today announced that it is scrapping its plans to end the insolvency exception to the Jackson reforms from April this year (as we had reported here).

There are circumstances where a liquidator may approach the Court concerned that their position in future proceedings may be weakened if the matters they put before the Court in current proceedings are revealed. In an appropriate case the Court will make a non-publication order to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice. The recent case of Australian Securities and Investment Commission v Piggott Wood & Baker (a firm) [2015] FCA 18 examined in what circumstances a non-publication order is necessary.

BACKGROUND

640 Elizabeth Street Pty Ltd (in liq) & Ors v Maxcon Pty Ltd [2015] VSC 22 confirms that the granting of security by a company to avoid a proceeding against a related company will not necessarily constitute an “uncommercial transaction”.

BACKGROUND

In the matter of One.Tel Limited (in liquidation) [2014] NSWSC 1892

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.