Like many legal tests, the test for insolvency is easy to state, but hard to apply in practice.

The United Kingdom Supreme Court (UKSC)¹ has recently issued an important clarification, which confirms that an element of forwards projection must be applied – extending in extreme cases to assessments of balance-sheet as well as cash-flow solvency.

This liberal approach is likely to be followed in New Zealand, despite differences in statutory wording.

The recent Court of Appeal case of Kakara Estate Ltd v Savvy Vineyards 3552 Ltd [2013] NZCA 101 provides a useful reminder that an assignment and a novation of an agreement are different. When an agreement is assigned, the assignor remains a party to the agreement. If the agreement is novated, a new agreement is created between the assignee and the continuing party, and the "assignor" is released.

In a recent High Court decision, a bank (B) applied to appoint liquidators to the TPS Asset Trust and TPS Asset No2 Trust (Trusts). The defendants had guaranteed loans borrowed from B by their company, both personally and in their capacity as trustees of the Trusts.

The defendants had been found guilty of fraud, tax evasion and attempting to pervert the course of justice in August 2012. In July 2012 the defendants had also been adjudicated bankrupt and their company had been placed in liquidation.

In Hutchins v Edwards [2013] NZHC 336, the High Court declined an application for an adjournment by a debtor who sought further time to liquidate property in order to pay a judgment debt.

If a liquidator is found guilty of stealing money from a company in liquidation, most creditors would assume that he or she could never be a liquidator again. Not in New Zealand. A recent case highlights the need for urgent reform of the regulation of insolvency practitioners.

Under section 241(4) of the Companies Act 1993 the High Court "may" order that a company which is unable to pay its debts be put into liquidation.  While the Court retains a discretion not to order the liquidation of an insolvent company, it will not usually exercise that discretion in the absence of good reasons for doing so.

Albacore Fisheries Ltd (Albacore), a former creditor of Sunsai Ltd (Sunsai), applied to have Sunsai restored to the register of companies so that it could put Sunsai into liquidation and trace Sunsai's pre removal assets.

In Sea Management Singapore Pte Ltd v Professional Service Brokers Ltd, SEA, a 50% shareholder in PSB, applied to put PSB into liquidation due to the irreconcilable deadlock SEA claimed existed at both board and shareholder levels over the direction of Conexa, a PSB subsidiary.  Associate Judge Bell dismissed the application, holding that it was not just and equitable to order liquidation when a reasonable option existed in the constitution, or under the shareholders' agreement.

Just what is an account receivable has been the subject of much debate, because it determines what assets are used to satisfy preferential claims, i.e. who gets paid first in a receivership or liquidation.  In 2008, the High Court judgment in Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Northshore Taverns (in liq) confined “accounts receivable” to “book debts”.  Although since criticised, that judgment was the only judicial authority on the point.

The Court of Appeal has affirmed the High Court’s ruling that a voluntary administrator may only use a casting vote where the number of creditors voting for and against the resolution is equal. 

The second limb of the test, that the 50% represent at least 75% in value, cannot be the subject of the casting vote.  Nor can the casting vote be used to choose between the number and the value.