In brief - High Court confirms that liquidators of landlord companies can disclaim leases, terminating lessees' rights

A Personal Insolvency Agreement, otherwise known as a PIA, is a flexible arrangement between debtors and their creditors. It involves a debtor putting forward a proposal as to how their financial affairs should be administered with a view to ensuring that creditors receive a dividend in respect of their debts.

A PIA will only come into operation if it has been accepted by a special resolution at a meeting of creditors – meaning a majority in numbers and at least 75% in value must vote in favour of the PIA.

In Willmott Growers Group Inc v Willmott Forests Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (In Liquidation) [2013] HCA 51, the High Court has confirmed that a liquidator of a landlord company has the power to disclaim a lease. The effect of the disclaimer is to terminate the leasehold interest of the lessee.

FACTS

A recent Federal Court of Australia decision has granted the Australian Commissioner of Taxation the right to recover, from a failed foreign company’s Australian assets, the pari passu amount the Commissioner would have been entitled to receive (on account of outstanding domestic tax and penalties) if he had been allowed to prove in the liquidation before the assets are remitted to the company’s foreign representatives (the liquidators). 

In Madsen-Ries v Rapid Construction Ltd [2013] NZCA 489, the Court of Appeal considered an appeal concerning a liquidator's attempt to have a payment set aside. 

The Australian Corporations Act 2001 provides that a company in liquidation that holds insurance for the benefit of third parties must pay the proceeds of the insurance policy to those third parties in priority to other creditors.  Insurance proceeds payable to third parties under this provision are subject to deductions of "any expenses of or incidental to getting in" those proceeds.  The liquidator of Brighton Hall Securities Pty Ltd sought directions from the court regarding the liquidator's entitlement to deduct his fees and expenses from the insurance proceeds.

The recent Victorian Supreme Court decision of Le Roi Homestyle Cookies Pty Ltd (in liquidation) v Gemmell [2013] VSC 452 determined that a person who does not claim privilege when being publicly examined by a liquidator will not be allowed to avoid pleading and providing discovery in subsequent civil proceedings on the basis that complying may expose them to a civil penalty or criminal sanction.

Facts

The defendants were alleged former de facto and shadow directors of Le Roi Homestyle Pty Ltd.

In our September 2012 insolvency update, we reported on Re Willmott Forests Ltd [2012] VSC 29, where the Victorian Court of Appeal found that a leasehold interest in land is extinguished by a liquidator's disclaimer of the lease pursuant to section 568(1) of the Australian Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

After nearly 20 years, the long running Bell litigation is almost over, with the Supreme Court of Western Australia having approved the settlement between the liquidators of the Bell group of companies and the syndicate of banks involved in the litigation (Re Bell Group (In Liq); Ex Parte Antony Leslie John Wooding as Liquidator of the Bell Group Ltd (In Liq) [2013] WASC 409).

BACKGROUND

In a decision handed down earlier today, in Willmott Growers Group Inc v Willmott Forests Limited (Receivers and Managers appointed) (in liquidation) [2013] HCA 51,  the majority of the High Court upheld the Victorian Court of Appeal’s conclusion that the liquidators of an insolvent landlord can disclaim a lease, thereby extinguishing the tenant’s leasehold interest.