In many bankruptcies the trustee is without funds to undertake litigation for the benefit of the bankrupt estate. In some cases a creditor is willing to indemnify the trustee in respect of the costs of such litigation where there are strong prospects of a successful conclusion with sufficient funds realised to distribute a dividend to creditors.

The High Court of Australia recently decided that when a landlord goes into liquidation, the liquidator may be able to disclaim a lease granted by the landlord.

For a tenant there can be very serious and very expensive consequences if a lease it has taken is disclaimed by its landlord’s liquidator.

A tenant may, however be able to take some steps to protect itself and avoid the expensive and significant consequences of a disclaimer of a lease by the landlord’s liquidator.

What does disclaim mean?

The NSW Court of Appeal recently confirmed that the bankruptcy of a personal trustee or appointer of a family trust does not affect the protection afforded to the family trust assets by the trust structure. 

The recent decision of Lewis v Nortex Pty Limited (in liquidation)¹ highlights potential issues that may arise for liquidators when issuing a bankruptcy notice.

Facts

Nortex Pty Ltd (Nortex) was the trustee of the Nortex Unit Trust (Trust) pursuant to a deed. Under the terms of the trust deed, Nortex ceased to be trustee when the company went into liquidation. The beneficiaries of the trust were Kation Pty Ltd (Kation) which was controlled by the appellant (Lewis) and Lamru Pty Ltd (Lamru).

In an important decision for the large number of discretionary trusts in Australia, the Supreme Court of New South Wales has considered whether a family trust structure is a sufficiently robust firewall to protect the family trust assets against claims by a trustee in bankruptcy appointed to the personal Trustee or Appointor of a family trust.

The decision is Lewis v Condon; Condon v Lewis [2013] NSWCA 204 which was handed down on 4 July 2013 by the Court of Appeal.

On the occurrence of bankruptcy, the trustee must take immediate possession or control of the bankrupt’s property, as that property is now “available” to the trustee for the benefit of creditors generally and vests in the trustee for that purpose.  However, a bankrupt may not always co-operate with his or her trustee and will often refuse to deliver up property to the trustee or even allow the trustee on to the premises where the property is held.

A relevant example

On the occurrence of bankruptcy, the trustee must take immediate possession or control of the bankrupt’s property, as that property is now “available” to the trustee for the benefit of creditors generally and vests in the trustee for that purpose.  However, a bankrupt may not always co-operate with his or her trustee and will often refuse to deliver up property to the trustee or even allow the trustee on to the premises where the property is held.

A relevant example

The Federal Magistrates Court of Australia decision of Dubow v Official Receiver & Anor [2013] FMCA 217 confirms that the Court’s discretion to annul bankruptcy is limited.  Even if the discretion is enlivened, it appears that the Court will be reluctant to exercise its discretion where the bankruptcy has come about by the bankrupt’s own petition.

In brief - Bill implements reforms proposed in options paper

In the case of Wilson v McNamara [2020] EWHC 98 (Ch) the High Court of England and Wales (the Court) considered whether the EU principle of freedom of establishment requires that a pension held in another EU member state (Ireland) should be excluded from a bankruptcy estate under UK law in the same manner as a UK pension would be in a UK bankruptcy. Mr Justice Nugee decided in order to decide the case the Court needed to refer a preliminary reference to the European Court of Justice (CJEU) on a question of EU law.