This week's TGIF considers Stubbings v Jams 2 Pty Ltd [2022] HCA 6, in which the High Court overturned a finding by the Victorian Court of Appeal and confirmed that certificates of independent advice will not always protect lenders from an unconscionability claim.

WHAT HAPPENED?

Rahan Constructions Pty Ltd (Rahan) was contracted to undertake commercial construction and other works in about April 2012.  On or about this date, Rahan entered into a credit account with Asset Flooring Pty Ltd (Asset Flooring).  Rahan’s obligations under this credit account were personally guaranteed by the respondent, Mr North.

On 30 July 2013, Rahan was wound up by order of the court and Asset Flooring sought to enforce the guarantee for the outstanding balance owing under the credit account.

In the recent case of Stubbings v Jams 2 Pty Ltd [2022] HCA 6, the High Court has allowed an appeal relating to asset-based lending (ABL) and the enforceability of security associated with these loans. The High Court held that whilst asset-based lending itself is not unconscionable, certain conduct may render loans and security unenforceable. The decision is a reminder that lenders should ensure the circumstances of potential borrowers are fully scrutinised prior to lending.

This week’s TGIF considers the decision of Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Currey in which the Court looks at whether a breach of clause 25.1 of the Code of Banking Practice renders a guarantee void or voidable.

BACKGROUND

A bank lent money to a family company, which was secured by personal guarantees provided by the applicants. 

This week’s TGIF considers a recent decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Re Antqip Pty Ltd (in liq) [2021] NSWSC 1122, concerning whether section 588FL of the Corporations Act2001 (Cth) applied to vest a security interest in the company that was granted after the ‘critical time’.

Key Takeaways

This week’s TGIF considers the case of Bowesco Pty Ltd v Westpoint Management Ltd [2015] WASCA 184, which considered whether a guarantor had a right of subrogation enabling it to be repaid in advance of the second ranking creditor. 

BACKGROUND

This week’s TGIF focuses on themes that are emerging as Australia moves to an economic recovery phase and sees the end of government intervention to prevent insolvencies.

Key takeaways

The respondent in this matter, Mr Culleton, owed Macquarie Leasing Pty Limited (Macquarie) a debt arising out of two chattel mortgage agreements.

Macquarie obtained judgment against Mr Culleton in the amount of $94,304. The judgment debt was not paid and Macquarie petitioned for a sequestration order to be made against Mr Culleton’s estate.

Macquarie served the Bankruptcy Notice on Mr Culleton by affixing it to a padlocked gate at his last known address.

Unlike the GFC, which was essentially a liquidity crisis, Australia is likely to face a gradual increase in business insolvencies, rather than the feared ‘insolvency cliff’, as the Federal Government’s COVID-19 stimulus measures are wound down at the end of March.

The ability of limited recourse provisions to protect borrowers and financiers against insolvency risks may be weaker due to a recent English court case.

Limited recourse clauses are often used in project and structured finance transactions. Borrowers want to avoid the risk of their directors being liable for trading while insolvent; and financiers may want to avoid the possibility of insolvency clawback actions if they seek to enforce their security documents.