Welcome to this issue of Herbert Smith Freehills' Australian Construction Dispute Resolution Newsletter.
This newsletter updates you on legal developments relevant to your industry by featuring Australian court decisions and legislative developments of particular interest.
In this issue, we look at:
Willmott Growers Group Inc v Willmott Forests Ltd (Receivers and Managers appointed) (In Liquidation) [2013] HCA 51
Overview
Section 568 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) gives liquidators broad powers to disclaim onerous property.
Until the High Court’s decision, it was unclear whether this power entitled a liquidator of an insolvent landlord to disclaim a lease, such that the solvent tenant no longer has any proprietary interest in the land.
In Short
The Situation: The statutory moratorium period for voluntary administrators to restructure an insolvent company often is too short to find a solution. Administrators frequently utilise "holding" deeds of company arrangement ("DOCAs") to extend the moratorium and "buy" time to investigate potential restructuring opportunities. A creditor challenged this practice by arguing that holding DOCAs are invalid.
The Question: Are holding DOCAs valid under the Corporations Act 2001(Cth)?
Key Points
Before 1993, the question of whether a creditor of a corporation being wound up had received an unfair preference from that corporation was determined under section 122 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). In 1993, a new Part 5.7B was inserted into the Corporations Act to deal with voidable transactions such as unfair preferences. Since then two lines of divergent judicial authority have developed:
Introduction
The High Court recently considered, in European Bank Limited v Robb Evans of Robb Evans & Associates, the nature and extent of a "usual undertaking as to damages" given by a receiver in accordance with Part 28, rule 7(2) of the Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW). In doing so, it overturned the decision of the NSW Court of Appeal to reinstate the trial judge's finding that the receiver was liable for substantial losses suffered by a third party deprived of the funds which were at the heart of the dispute.
Background
Introduction