Summary

Parties that withhold from serving a Statement of Claim and then seek an extension of time to do so, without a 'good reason' for an extension being granted, run the risk of the claim not being renewed and being dismissed in its entirety.

This is a lesson learned the hard way by a liquidator in three recent concurrent, interrelated proceedings in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

Background to the claims

If you have guaranteed the debts of a person or entity that is in financial distress, you should take legal advice as soon as possible. Whatever you do, do not panic and make a rash decision such as declaring bankruptcy, winding up your business or selling your family home. The creditor seeking to enforce the guarantee may be more amenable to compromise than you think, particularly given the risks that creditors often face when they seek to enforce guarantees.

This week’s TGIF considers In the matter of Arrium Limited [2018] NSWSC 747 in which the Court granted creditors access to documents produced in public examinations.

What happened?

This week’s TGIF considers In the matter of MJM(WA) Enterprises Pty Ltd (in liq) [2018] NSWSC 944, where the Court approved a liquidator’s remuneration but deferred decisions about trust distributions until after the Re Amerind litigation finishes.

What happened?

The company operated two barbershops in Perth as trustee for a family trust before liquidators were appointed in May 2017.

Several decisions handed down in the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (PPSA) space have emphasised the importance of registering security interests within the legislative timeframes and also examined the discretionary factors courts will consider in their deliberations over whether extensions of time for registration of security interests should be granted.

The Supreme Court of Western Australia has recently made a freezing order in the matter of Trans Global Projects Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (TGP) v Duro Felguera Australia Pty Ltd (Duro) [2018] WASC 136.

This decision sheds light on:

In late 2015, the High Court handed down its decision in Commissioner of Taxation v Australian Building Systems Pty Ltd (in liq) [2015] HCA 48. The High Court held (by a majority of 3:2) that, in the absence of an assessment, a liquidator is not required to retain funds from asset sale proceeds in order to meet a tax liability which could become payable as a result of a capital gain made on the sale. In doing so, the majority of the High Court affirmed the decision of the Full Federal Court and provided long awaited guidance to liquidators, receivers and administrators.

Introduction

In the recent decision of Heavy Plant Leasing [2018] NSWSC 707, a creditor successfully defended an unfair preference claim by establishing it did not have reasonable grounds to suspect the insolvency of the debtor company, who was a subcontractor in the earth moving business.

The most common way of defending a liquidator’s unfair preferences claim is to rely upon section 588FG(2) of the Corporations Act 2001(Cth); commonly called the ‘good faith defence’.

In Short

The Background: The administrators of an Australian auction house and gallery business applied to the Federal Court of Australia for directions to recover in excess of $1 million in fees and costs incurred with respect to performing a stocktake of the auction house's inventory and returning consigned goods to owners.

The Issue: Did an equitable lien exist over the consigned goods in favour of the administrators for their fees and costs and, if so, could the administrators recover those fees and costs?