Key Points:

In some circumstances a plaintiff/claimant can bypass a defendant (even an insolvent one) and seek a declaration against the defendant's insurer.

The High Court has confirmed that, if a defendant is insolvent, the plaintiff may seek a declaration that the defendant's insurer is liable to indemnify the defendant, at least when:

Key Points:

Courts will remove liquidators where there's apparent bias even where it might cause significant inconvenience and expense to the liquidation.

The Full Court of the Federal Court has found that a conflict of interest arose in circumstances where liquidators were required to investigate transactions with an entity that also refers work to the liquidators (ASIC v Franklin; Re Walton Construction Pty Ltd [2014] FCAFC 85).

Courts are willing, in certain circumstances, to consider the commercial realities of voluntary administrations, and can be flexible.

In the recent case of Dwyer & Ors and Davies & Ors v Chicago Boot Co Pty Ltd [2011] SASC 27, Chicago Boot claimed that certain payments made to it by two insolvent companies were not unfair preference payments, because of, amongst other defences, the purported application of a retention of title clause in relation to the supply of goods by Chicago Boot.

Victoria's Court of Appeal has reaffirmed the risk that a disclaimer of property may be set aside where the liquidators are indemnified, and the need for liquidators to be mindful where the company holds contaminated property.

Australia has now entered its first recession in 29 years, and the Australian Government has implemented a number of legislative reforms and other initiatives to support and provide temporary relief to businesses, including stimulus payments, enhanced asset write-off and flexibility in the application of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

The Kaboko judgment brings comfort to directors who hold D&O insurance policies, or those seeking to bring proceedings against directors of an insolvent company, provided the claim is not based in whole or in part on the company's insolvency.

A recent NSW Supreme Court decision has decided that an insolvent contractor can claim under Security of Payment legislation, rejecting Victorian Court of Appeal precedent as "plainly wrong". It might have significant ramifications for participants in the building and construction industry across Australia.

In Seymour Whyte Constructions Pty Ltd v Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd (in liq) [2018] NSWSC 412, the NSW Supreme Court considered the extent to which Security of Payment (SOP) legislation can be relied upon by an insolvent contractor.

In a big 24 hours for restructuring and insolvency, the safe harbour reforms were passed by the Senate late last night, and anti-phoenixing reforms were announced this morning.

Safe harbour reforms

The safe harbour laws will commence operation the day after the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Bill 2017 receives Royal Assent, with the ipso facto provisions set to commence on 1 July 2018 (or earlier by proclamation).

Key Points:

A Senate Economics References Committee has recommended that the Commonwealth enact uniform national security of payment legislation, albeit with a target of around 2018 for implementation.

Security of payment (SOP) reform discussion papers were released by the Queensland and New South Wales Governments in the run up to Christmas. That timing happened to coincide with the publication by the Senate Economics References Committee of its report "'I just want to be paid': Insolvency in the Australian Construction Industry".