A recent decision by Justice Beech of the Western Australian Supreme Court in Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v James [2015] WASC 10[1] has considered the issue of whether an adjudication determination made under the Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA) (the Construction Contracts Act) can be enforced by an insolvent company.

SUMMARY

Debts claimed in statutory demands must be due and payable to the creditor named in the statutory demand.

When disputing statutory demands it is common for debtor companies to argue an offsetting claim, so as to reduce or extinguish the amount claimed in the statutory demand.

For there to be a valid offsetting claim there must be ‘mutuality’, meaning that the legal capacities in which both the offsetting claim and the statutory demand debt are each claimed and owed must align.

This case highlights that the fiduciary duty to avoid conflicts of interest in particular will be strictly adhered to, with questions of fairness or unfairness of the relevant transaction being irrelevant.  Directors are reminded of the need to take great care to manage potential risks when involved in transactions in which they are acting as director of more than one company.  In particular, directors should check the rules in the companies’ constitutions around conflict of interest and if there is any concern, disclose their interest and seek approval of the companie

The Supreme Court of Western Australia recently handed down its decision in Soil and Contracting Pty Ltd v Boban Pty Ltd [2014] WASC 402 which confirmed that, notwithstanding the operation of s 459R of the Corporations Act, the slip rule is available to extend the time limit within which a winding up application may be determined.

SECTION 459R

Turner v Gorkowski [2014] VSCA 248

Whether application seeking a declaration for or against the title of the trustee to a trustee in bankruptcy under s 58(1)(a) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) is a ‘special federal matter’ within the meaning of s 6(1) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross Vesting Act) 1987 (Cth).

On appeal, the Victorian Supreme Court of Appeal transferred a proceeding initiated in the Supreme Court to the Federal Court.

Australia is a member of both the Basel Committee and the G20 and in November, Brisbane was host to the G20 Leaders' Summit.

The agenda focussed on increasing global growth, jobs and economic stability.  Despite the positive G20 intentions, David Cameron was quoted as saying "red warning lights are once again flashing on the dashboard of the global economy".

The Federal Court of Australia recently considered the Court’s discretionary power to provide assistance to a foreign trustee (Hong Kong) in bankruptcy, by way of appointing a receiver over divisible property located in Australia in the case of Lees v O’Dea (No 2) [2014] FCA 1082.  It also continued the ongoing focus on practitioner’s remuneration, an issue which has attracted some attention in various state courts.

Background

An often complicated and at times mysterious issue that arises for practitioners and their lawyers in the insolvency space is how one should approach trusts and trust assets. This year, there have been at least three Supreme Court of New South Wales decisions (all, incidentally, delivered by Justice Brereton) that may provide some much needed judicial guidance on the matter.

Receivers are often faced with the dilemma of goods in their possession which are not readily identifiable as “property of the corporation” pursuant to section 420 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (CA). Selling or disposing of assets that are not property of the company may make receivers liable for the loss or conversion of such goods. Therefore, it is important that receivers identify the property of the company correctly.

Liquidators are subject to rights and duties under common law and the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (CA).