Central Cleaning Supplies (Aust) Pty Ltd v Elkerton [2014] VSC 61.

Appeal from liquidators’ decision to reject claim for the return of cleaning equipment subject to retention of title. Consideration of retention of title clauses and the application of the transitional security agreements under Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth).

Impact of Apportionment

The High Court decision in Hunt & Hunt v. Mitchell Morgan Nominees Pty Ltd ((2013) HCA 10) highlights the impact of proportionate liability where it applies. In that case the High Court apportioned 87.5% of the liability to bankrupt fraudsters with only 12.5% of the liability being apportioned to the solicitors who had failed to protect the plaintiff from the fraud. Without the impact of apportionment Hunt & Hunt would have been liable severally for 100% of the loss.

If your terms of trade documents don’t have the correct provisions, you can lose goods supplied to a customer that becomes insolvent, even though you may have title to the goods.

A recent Supreme Court decision highlights the need for retention of title suppliers to have adequate terms of trade documents and to register security interests on the Personal Property Securities Register (PPSR) to avoid losing assets if a customer becomes insolvent.

The Farm Debt Mediation Act 2011 (Vic) (the Act) has been in operation for some two years and is in large part modelled on New South Wales legislation which has been operative since 1994. Since the commencement of the Act in Victoria, over 180 mediations have taken place with 95% of those mediations resulting in a settlement agreement between the parties.

The two year transitional period under the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (PPSA) ends on 31 January 2014.  After this date, any remaining transitional security interests (TSIs) that have not been registered on the Personal Property Securities Register (PPSR) will no longer have their pre-PPSA priority, which could result in a secured party losing priority to other secured creditors or losing its interest in the secured property altogether if the grantor becomes bankrupt (if an individual) or is placed into administration or liquidation (if a company).

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. 

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

There is a recognised ambiguity in the transitional provisions of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (PPSA),relating to the issue of whether an ‘umbrella agreement’, governing the supply of goods on retention of title (RoT) terms entered into prior to 30 January 2012, will be an effective transitional security interest.

In the matter of Maiden Civil (P&E) Pty Ltd; Richard Albarran and Blair Alexander Pleash as receivers and managers of Maiden Civil (P&E) Pty Ltd & Ors v Queensland Excavation Services Pty Ltd & Ors [2013] NSWSC 852

Overview

Dispute is one of priority, not ownership.

The first judgment regarding a major Personal Property Securities Act ("PPSA") priority dispute between a bank with a perfected "General Security Agreement" and an equipment owner with an unperfected "PPS Lease" has been handed down.

The decision in Richard Albarran and Blair Alexander Pleash as receivers and managers of Maiden Civil (P&E) Pty Ltd & Ors v Queensland Excavation Services Pty Ltd & Ors  highlights three key issues for the insolvency industry: