Like many areas of insolvency law, statutory demands have strict procedural requirements as to the timing by which documents must be served. But how is the passage of time calculated? If something is required to be done "21 days after" a document is served, is this intended to be inclusive or exclusive of the day the document was served? The Supreme Court of NSW recently grappled with this issue in Verimark Pty Ltd v Passiontree Velvet Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 455 and has provided clarity for lawyers and insolvency practitioners alike.

This week’s TGIF considers a recent application for removal of liquidators where creditors argued that the liquidators had not properly discharged their duties and were not independent.

Background

This week’s TGIF considers a recent insolvent trading claim involving novel questions in relation to privilege against self-incrimination and the apportionment of liability between successive directors.

Background

Will a Court order security for costs against a liquidator with litigation funding? Not always, as a recent decision of the NSW Supreme Court made clear.

Background

The defendant was the director of a company (Commercial Indemnity Pty Ltd or ‘Commercial Indemnity’) which provided agency services for commercial and industrial rental and petroleum bonds.

In the recent case of In the matter of Gondon Five Pty Limited and Cui Family Asset Management Pty Limited [2019] NSWSC 469, the New South Wales Supreme Court (Brereton J) considered the purpose and scope of an appointment as receiver to a company, and came down particularly hard on an insolvency practitioner for performing work and incurring expenses which were determined to be outside, or not incidental to, the scope of his appointment.

Background

Former One Nation Senator Rod Culleton has been referred to police over allegations he made a false declaration in his candidacy nomination for the upcoming federal election.

There is now a divergence between New South Wales and Victorian authority on whether a company in liquidation may make a claim under Security of Payment legislation. The common law position in NSW is now that a company in liquidation can bring a Security of Payment claim. This decision will be rendered somewhat academic in NSW following enactment of legislation to come into force on a (currently unspecified) date in 2019 which has the effect of overriding this decision.

In New South Wales (NSW), unlike in Victoria, claimants in liquidation have been able to make claims under Security of Payments Acts (SOPA). This has been recently reaffirmed in the case of Seymour Whyte Constructions Pty Ltd v Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) [2019] NSWCA 11 (Seymour), where the court doubled-down on this position and further explained why the NSW position differs from the position taken by the Victorian Court of Appeal in the infamous Faade Treatment Engineering Pty Ltd (in liq) v Brookfield Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd [2016] VSCA 247 (Faade).

In business it is not uncommon for a director of a company to be owed money by that company.

If the commercial relationship breaks down, the director may think it is an option to serve a creditor’s statutory demand on the debtor company.

However, recent court decisions demonstrate that issuing a creditor’s statutory demand is not a sure fire method of obtaining payment where the director is owed the debt personally or is a director of both the creditor and debtor companies.

Cases where statutory demands have been successfully challenged

Seymour Whyte Constructions Pty Ltd v Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd (In liquidation) [2019] NSWCA 11

The NSW Court of Appeal has decided that SOPA enforcement is available to claimants in liquidation in NSW, contrary to its equivalent Court in Victoria.   The same statutory words now have consequences that differ north and south of the border.

Why does this matter?