This week’s TGIF considers the Federal Court decision of National Australia Bank Ltd v Garrett [2016] FCA 714 in which the Court stepped in to invalidate and restrain an improper registration on the PPSR

BACKGROUND

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

Peter Bloxham has completed the first phase of his independent review of the Investment Bank Special Administration Regulations 2011 and in February 2013 presented an interim report, which HM Treasury has now published. In addition to making a number of immediate recommendations, the interim report sets out further areas to be reviewed as part of a second phase of work.

The Financial Reporting Council (FRC) and institutional bodies have published the following guidance in relation to corporate governance and directors' remuneration in the last few months.

2013 will herald some significant changes to the UK legal arena, notably in the corporate area in relation to executive remuneration and narrative reporting, in dispute resolution as the Government's reforms to the civil litigation costs and funding regime are due to be implemented and in the energy, real estate and construction areas where there are major changes to the carbon reduction commitment energy efficiency scheme, further amendments to the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations, the introduction of the Growth and Infrastructure Bill and various amendments to the Building Regula