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.

A recent decision of the Full Federal Court gives liquidators comfort that they are not required to set money aside to meet the future tax obligations of a company until those obligations have been assessed by the Tax Office. Although liquidators must retain money 'sufficient to pay tax which is or will become due', this obligation only applies to tax liabilities that have been assessed and are presently payable or payable in the future, not to liabilities that might be created by future assessments.

Re: Joe & Joe Developments Pty Ltd (subject to a Deed of Company Arrangement) [2014] NSWSC 1444

Recently, Courts have increased focus on the appropriateness of expenditure (including legal fees) incurred by insolvency practitioners and the steps they should undertake to determine if the costs and expenses are reasonable. Warren Jiear, Partner and Tim Logan, Associate look at a case handed down on 22 October 2014 that considered these issues and the implications for practitioners.

In the recent decision of Pt Bayan Resources TBK v BCBC Singapore Pte Ltd [2014] WASCA 178, the Western Australian Court of Appeal unanimously found that the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) (RSC) were valid insofar as they empower the Court to ‘freeze’ local assets ahead of a possible foreign judgment.

FACTS

The directors of Joe & Joe Developments Pty Ltd (the Company), were Mr Tony Elias and Mr Joseph Kossaifi. The Company’s shareholders were the directors and their families.

In late 2005, the Companypurchased land in Narrabeen, NSW and constructed commercial and retail units on that land.  Differences between the directors as to what should be done in respect of the completed development emerged from early 2007 and had grown into a substantial dispute by 2008.

Introduction

Owen, in the Matter of RiverCity Motorway Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (“RiverCity”) [2014] FCA 1008

The respondent in this matter, Mr Culleton, owed Macquarie Leasing Pty Limited (Macquarie) a debt arising out of two chattel mortgage agreements.

Macquarie obtained judgment against Mr Culleton in the amount of $94,304. The judgment debt was not paid and Macquarie petitioned for a sequestration order to be made against Mr Culleton’s estate.

Macquarie served the Bankruptcy Notice on Mr Culleton by affixing it to a padlocked gate at his last known address.

Successive court decisions in Australia are emphasising the enforceability of receivers’ liens in a clear statement to the market about the primacy of insolvency practitioners’ fees.  This is a trend that we expect will shape policy here.