Can a builder that is in liquidation take advantage of the security of payment regime? Not according to a 2016 decision of the Court of Appeal in Victoria, but last month the NSW Court of Appeal reached a different conclusion. In our latest Corrs High Vis podcast, Samuel Woff and Ryan Shlah sit down with presenter Wayne Jocic to discuss the two cases, and the approach taken by each Court.

Recently the Victorian Court of Appeal upheld a decision to deny liquidators approval of a proposed settlement in McDermott and Potts as liquidators of Lonnex Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2019] VSCA 23. The creditors had been opposed to the settlement.

Background

A recent NSW Court of Appeal decision has re-enlivened the possibility of insolvent construction companies successfully recovering debts via the Security of Payment legislation. Insolvency practitioners appointed to construction companies should seek advice promptly following their appointment.

On 12 February 2019, the New South Wales Court of Appeal handed down its decision in Seymour Whyte Constructions Pty Ltd v Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2019] NSWCA 11.

This week’s TGIF article looks at the decision of Hooke v Bux Global Ltd (No 6) [2018] FCA 1545, where Bux Global Ltd (Bux Global) was wound up on just and equitable grounds and the perceived independence of a director-appointed liquidator was questioned.

Background

In Short

The Situation: Section 553C of the Corporations Act 2001 (WA) ("Act")provides that if a creditor and a company in liquidation have mutual dealings, the creditor must offset any sum the creditor owes to the company in liquidation against debt owed by the company.

The Question: Does the existence of a third party security interest over circulating assets (floating charge) which are intended to be set off against other debts prevent the dealings from being "mutual"?

The Court of Appeal - Supreme Court of Western Australian has delivered a decision confirming that a statutory set-off under s 553C of the Corporations Act can still be available to a creditor where a general security interest has attached to the amounts it is seeking to set-off (provided those amounts are circulating assets of the insolvent company), whilst leaving the door open for creditors to rely upon set-off rights at general law in those instances where set-off under s 553C is unavailable.

Liquidators have more certainty about their ability to disclaim the environmental liabilities and responsibilities of a company in liquidation.

This week’s TGIF considers the decision in Mujkic Family Company Pty Ltd v Clarke & Gee Pty Ltd [2018] TASFC 4, which concerns a rather novel issue – whether a solicitor acting for a shareholder might also owe a duty of care to the company in liquidation.

What happened?

In 2015, the Supreme Court of Queensland ordered that the corporate trustee of a family trust be wound up.

This week’s TGIF considers the process that a liquidator may follow when a director fails to attend at an examination. It considers the appeal in Mensink v Parbery [2018] FCAFC 101, in which the Court set out the relevant differences between arrest warrants issued to require a director to attend an examination, and arrest warrants to answer charges for contempt.

What happened?

What are your responsibilities if there is a change to your company’s registered office?

The Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) sets out an exhaustive (and even onerous) list of duties for Australian registered companies and their directors. Among these is the duty to notify the Australia Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) of a change to the company’s registered office. This must be done within 28 days of the change in location.