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.

The Full Court of the Federal Court has recently confirmed that the “slip rule” can be used to retrospectively extend the life of a creditor’s petition, but has highlighted that the rule only applies if certain conditions are met.

The law

Today the High Court of Australia handed down a decision which confirms a liquidator has the green light to disclaim leasehold interests in land (Willmott Growers Group Inc v Willmott Forests Limited (receivers and managers appointed)(in liquidation)).

Due to the way in which the case came before the Courts, the High Court did not consider the application of s568B of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act). 

This section allows tenants to challenge in Court the liquidator’s disclaimer.

Willmott Growers Group Inc v Willmott Forests Ltd (Receivers and Managers appointed) (In Liquidation) [2013] HCA 51

Overview

Section 568 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) gives liquidators broad powers to disclaim onerous property.

Until the High Court’s decision, it was unclear whether this power entitled a liquidator of an insolvent landlord to disclaim a lease, such that the solvent tenant no longer has any proprietary interest in the land.

The Federal Court decision of Crumpler (as liquidator and joint representative) of Global Tradewaves Ltd (a company registered in the British Virgin Islands) v Global Tradewaves (in liquidation), in the matter of Global Tradewaves Ltd (in liquidation)[2013] FCA 1127 provides an illustrative example of the way that cross border insolvency recognition can be used to aid a foreign administration.

Facts

When a company is placed into liquidation, the company’s available funds are paid to general unsecured creditors on a pro rata basis by way of a dividend payment.  However, certain classes of creditors are given priority in the payment of dividends, including employees who are owed wages and other employment entitlements by the company.

What is the position if a person advances money to a company, after it has been placed into external administration, to allow the company to pay wages or other entitlements to employees?

Summary 

In this eBulletin we discuss a recent Supreme Court of NSW decision: In the matter ofGreat Wall Resources Pty Limited (In Liq) [2013] NSWSC 354. This decision provides useful insight into the scope of unreasonable director-related transactions.

Like the mythical bird that dies and then resurrects, phoenixing is the deliberate liquidation of a company to avoid paying tax, creditors or employees and then the ‘resurrection’ of the business through a different entity.

It is illegal and particularly prevalent in the construction sector. It’s time for the states to take action against phoenixing through better licensing of builders.

BACKGROUND

The company P Hindle & Co Pty Ltd (WA) was placed in liquidation in 2008. Mr Huxtable was appointed as liquidator of the company (Liquidator). The Liquidator acted as chairperson at a meeting of creditors in late 2010 where 4 out of a potential 161 creditors attended.