The Western Australian Court of Appeal has recently delivered its judgment on one of the country's longest running pieces of litigation: Westpac Banking Corporation v The Bell Group (in liq) [No 3] (the Bell Appeal). The Bell Appeal decision runs at over 1,000 pages and discusses a range of issues relating to transactions conducted immediately prior to insolvency. Of particular significance for directors and financiers are the discussions relating to director's duties, knowing receipt and knowing assistance.
In Raithatha v Williamson [2012] EWHC 090 Ch, the English High Court was asked to decide whether a bankrupt’s entitlement to a pension, which he had not yet elected to receive, should be subject to an order for income payment.
The UK Supreme Court has recently considered the role of commercial common sense in interpreting a contract. Rainy Sky v Kookmin Bank concerned the interpretation of bonds issued by Kookmin Bank to guarantee the return of advance payments made by six purchasers under separate shipbuilding contracts. The shipbuilder had suffered an insolvency event and the purchasers were claiming refunds of the advance payments made to the shipbuilder under the bonds. The Bank contended that the bonds did not guarantee repayment of the advances on insolvency.
InThe Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Blackmore Trust Ltd, Blackmore tried to stave off liquidation for the sum of $1.4 million owed to the IRD. After six or seven adjournments, Blackmore finally put evidence before the Court (albeit through its lawyer, rather than by affidavit) claiming that its liabilities totalled $15.6 million, and its sole asset, the James Smith building in the Wellington CBD, was valued at $21.5 million as a going concern, or $11 million - $13 million in a "fire sale".
Khan v Reid acts as a reminder to file applications and appeals promptly.
ACC had contracted OPC to provide services. OPC's directors later established the OPC Trust, with OPC as the trustee, and 3 residuary trusts as beneficiaries.
The High Court has released its judgment in Re Halifax NZ Limited (In liq) [2021] NZHC 113, involving a unique contemporaneous sitting of the High Court of New Zealand and Federal Court of Australia.
The Supreme Court in Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd [2020] UKSC 31 has brought much needed clarity to the legal basis and scope of the so-called ‘reflective loss’ principle. The effect of the decision is a ‘bright line’ rule that bars claims by shareholders for loss in value of their shares arising as a consequence of the company having suffered loss, in respect of which the company has a cause of action against the same wrong-doer.
The UK Court of Appeal has held that legal privilege outlasts the dissolution of a company in Addlesee v Dentons Europe LLP [2019] EWCA Civ 1600.
Legal advice privilege applies to communications between a client and its lawyers. The general rule is that those communications cannot be disclosed to third parties unless and until the client waives the privilege.
High Court orders the liquidation of CBL Insurance