In the matter ofMustang Marine Australia Services Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 1074, Brereton J of the New South Wales Supreme Court held that there is no principle that before instituting proceedings a liquidator must be satisfied of the material facts that constitute its cause of action, and that absent such satisfaction the proceedings are an abuse of process. As long as proceedings are instituted for bona fide relief claimed and are not doomed then there is no abuse of process.
FACTS
The NSW Supreme Court considered the application of the ‘Universal principle’ in Volkswagen Financial Services Australia Pty Ltd v Atlas CTL Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (In Liquidation) [2022] NSWSC 573, dismissing a claim for an equitable lien made by administrators and liquidators for trading costs and remuneration.
Key takeaways
This week’s TGIF considers the recent case of In the matter of Newheadspace Pty Limited (in liq) [2020] NSWSC 173, where the Supreme Court of New South Wales set aside a liquidator’s examination summonses on the grounds of an abuse of process and failure to satisfy s 596B of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).
What happened?
This week’s TGIF considers a NSW Court of Appeal decision which confirms that liquidators who bring a claim for preference payments within the limitation period may amend that claim to capture additional transactions otherwise subject to a statutory bar.
Background
Sydney Recycling Park (SRP) provided “tipping services” to Cardinal Group (Cardinal), who were in the business of “waste management”. Cardinal ran into some financial difficulties and on 1 February 2012, it was placed into liquidation.
In Re John Pettit Pty Limited (Subject to a Deed of Company Arrangement) [2014] NSWSC 728, the Supreme Court of NSW considered an application by the deed administrators of John Pettit Pty Ltd (John Pettit) seeking directions to sell property potentially owned by third parties and orders which limited the Deed Administrators’ personal liability in relation to the sale.
BACKGROUND
A prohibition order in place on a development in Hassall Street, Parramatta, NSW, serves as a useful reminder for developers, builders and financiers of the importance of complying with the requirements of the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 (NSW) (DBP Act) and the Residential Apartment Buildings (Compliance and Enforcement Powers) Act 2020 (NSW) (RAB Act) (together, the Acts) (and the consequences of non-compliance).
This week’s TGIF examines In the matter of Bytecan Pty Limited (in liquidation) [2019] NSWSC 1910, in which the Supreme Court of New South Wales considered the scope of the advantage to an indemnifying creditor available under section 564.
The facts
This week’s TGIF considers In the matter of Blue Sennar Air Pty Ltd (in liq); In the matter of Eye Plantain Pty Ltd (in liq) [2016] NSWSC 772 in which the Court clarified the rights of a liquidator to disclaim “unprofitable contracts” pursuant to section 568(1A) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).
WHAT HAPPENED?
On 14 May 2015, the defendant liquidator was appointed administrator of Eye Plantain Pty Ltd (Eye Plantain). He became liquidator of Eye Plantain shortly thereafter.
In DSG Holdings Australia Pty Ltd v Helenic Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 96, the Court of Appeal considered the meaning of the “interests of the creditors as a whole” under section 600A of the Corporations Actand the circumstances in which the Court will intervene to set aside or impose conditions on resolutions passed at creditors meetings.
BACKGROUND
The NSW Supreme Court considered the application of the ‘Universal principle’ in Volkswagen Financial Services Australia Pty Ltd v Atlas CTL Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (In Liquidation) [2022] NSWSC 573, dismissing a claim for an equitable lien made by administrators and liquidators for trading costs and remuneration.
Key takeaways