Introduction

The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia has rejected an argument that the applicant for an order for a company to be wound in insolvency must prove that the company was insolvent at the "relation-back day" in addition to proving insolvency at the date of filing the application and the date of the hearing. 

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).

Pursuant to section 459A of the Corporations Act (the Act), a Court may order that an insolvent company be wound up in insolvency.  For such an order to be made, it is conventional practice that the applicant demonstrates insolvency at the date of filing the application and at the date of the hearing of the application.

Summary 

In the recent decision of Re Willmott Forests Ltd,1the Victorian Court of Appeal held that a liquidator could disclaim a lease under the Corporations Act (Act).

The importance of notifications to potential defendants and directors of the insolvent company

The decision in Re Octaviar Administration Pty Ltd (in liq) [2013] NSWSC 786 highlights two key issues for insolvency practitioners:

The recent Australian Federal Court case of Neeat Holdings (in liq) [2013] FCA 61 considered the issue of whether the liquidator of a trustee company should be permitted to sell trust assets notwithstanding the appointment of a new trustee in substitution for the insolvent trustee company.

The Federal Court found that where a trust deed provides for the cessation of a corporate trustee upon the appointment of an administrator or upon a resolution for its liquidation (and there is no replacement trustee appointed), the corporate trustee retains its right of indemnity and continues as bare trustee but does not have the power to sell the trust assets.  However, the Court was persuaded to grant relief to the liquidators of the trustee (who had sold trust assets) on the basis they had not been advised by their solicitors of the disqualification clause and they com

In the recent case MSI (Holdings) Pty Ltd v Mainstreet International Group Ltd, the Queensland Supreme Court confirmed that receivers of a company in liquidation can commence legal proceedings in the name of the company without leave of the court, when those proceedings relate to the recovery of secured property.

It is well established that if a trustee company goes into liquidation then:

The decision of Fielding as Liquidator of Lyngray Developments Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) v Dushas & Anor [2013] QCA55, overturned a Judgment at first instance where it was held that various payments made by a company to a close associate of a director of a company were not unreasonable director related transactions pursuant to Section 588 FE(6).

The Court of Appeal held that the payments did constitute unreasonable director related transactions and this decision provides guidance as to: