The Treasury Laws Amendment (Combating Illegal Phoenixing) Bill 2019 was passed by both houses of Parliament on 5 February 2020, with an amendment made by the Senate to review the operation and effectiveness of the legislation after five years accepted by the House of Representatives.

This week’s TGIF article considers the case of Re Watch Works Australia Pty Ltd (in liq) & Anor; Ex Parte Francis & Ors [2020] WASC 6, in which the Supreme Court of Western Australia determined two linked companies were to be a ‘pooled group’ in order to satisfy the external debts payable by both companies.

What happened?

Generally, once a company enters into liquidation, litigation against that company cannot be commenced or be continued without the leave of the Court (Corporations Act 2001, s 471B). However, occasionally a liquidator may cause a company to commence or defend litigation after the commencement of the winding up. What happens if the company in liquidation is unsuccessful in that litigation and is subject to an adverse cost order? How will such an adverse cost order rank amongst other competing creditors?

Getting to the top

On 10 October 2019 the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman, Kate Carnell, announced an upcoming inquiry into insolvency practices. The inquiry was announced in light of rising concerns as to the efficacy of the voluntary administration process for SMEs and family-owned businesses, and concerns with the conduct of insolvency practitioners more generally.

In the recent decision of In the matter of Parkway One Pty Limited (in liquidation) [2019] NSWSC 1495 (Parkway), Rees J dismissed an application to terminate the winding up of Parkway One Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (the Company) due to inconclusive evidence as to the solvency of the Company and, having regard to the non-compliance by its director of her statutory duties and the likelihood of the Company not being able to service the current and foreseen indebtedness, her Honour held that it would be contrary to commercial morality to terminate the wi

Dominic Emmett and Hannah Cooper, Gilbert + Tobin

This is an extract from the first edition of GRR's The Art of the Pre-Pack. The whole publication is available here.

In a last Amerind-tinged gift before Christmas, the High Court has today handed down another judgment on an issue which lies at the intersection between insolvency law and trust law, although this time in the bankruptcy context. It is the latest in a string of unfolding legal developments at this intersection, including the High Court’s decision in June in Amerind and the Full Federal Court’s decision last year in Killarnee.

This week’s edition of TGIF considers the landmark decision of the High Court in BMW Australia Ltd v Brewster; Westpac Banking Corporation v Lenthall[2019] HCA 45 and what it might mean for insolvency practitioners.

Decision

In a recent decision of the New South Wales Supreme Court, Justice Black declined to provide Court approval to the provisional liquidators for payment of disbursements that contain a profit element.

His Honour observed that two fundamental questions arise when determining whether an external administrator may derive a profit from disbursements:

In the recent decision of Boensch as Trustee of the Boensch Trust v Scott Darren Pascoe [2019] HCA 49, the High Court has clarified whether property held by a bankrupt on trust for another vests in the bankrupt's trustee in bankruptcy, and the circumstances in which a trustee in bankruptcy will have reasonable cause to lodge a caveat to protect an interest in the trust property.

Background