The Supreme Court of New South Wales has clarified the circumstances in which a liquidator may recover deposit funds paid to a third party and the extent to which a counterparty may rely on the good-faith defence under section 588FG of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).
It is a recurring practical issue in insolvency proceedings how the creditor may prove that an invoice was duly communicated to the debtor. In a recent decision, the Hungarian court examined if screenshots taken from an electronic invoicing system suffice to prove delivery and awareness of an invoice, in the absence of traditional postal proof. In our article we analyse the decision.
1. Facts of the case
Introduction
In a recent decision, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) provided useful clarification on how TUPE operates in insolvency scenarios when a provisional liquidator is appointed. The judgment confirms that the TUPE exception for terminal insolvency proceedings can apply earlier than some employers and buyers may expect, with the result that employee transfer protections may be disapplied before a winding-up order is made.
TUPE and insolvency
It has recently been reported in the press that the project company for England’s largest Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contract is going into liquidation, affecting 88 schools in Stoke-on-Trent.
In early November 2025 one of the biggest UK’s largest private building control firms Assent Building Control Compliance Limited, along with its subsidiaries Oculus Building Consultancy Limited and LB Building Control Limited, (together “Assent”) ceased trading and subsequently entered liquidation. The collapse of such a major player in the building control sector will likely have wide ramifications throughout the whole construction industry, and particularly for HRB developments and the BSR’s Gateway 2 Application process.
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in CL Financial Ltd (in Liquidation)[1] has provided helpful guidance on applications for approving liquidators’ remuneration.
Creditors’ statutory demands are a very powerful, and commonly used weapon by creditors. They are cheap and easy to issue, and the consequences for not dealing with one appropriately can be extremely serious – i.e. liquidation.
Because of this, the courts enforce strict compliance with the requirements imposed on a party seeking to rely on one, so creditors should ensure they are up to date on those requirements.
The concept that a court- or insolvency-appointed director (such as a liquidator or administrator) may “adopt” employment contracts — well known under UK insolvency practice — has no direct equivalent under Hungarian law. Nevertheless, it is important in practice to understand when a managing director becomes the actual addressee of employer obligations.
Hungarian Context
The key actors in Hungarian insolvency and restructuring proceedings are:
Following the publication of our recent article on the voluntary liquidation of solvent limited liability companies (LLCs) in the UAE, an important question was raised by one of the readers: what happens if, during liquidation, it is discovered that the company’s assets are insufficient to discharge all of its debts, and what liability may arise for shareholders or directors in such a case?