A recent Western Australia decision in the receivership and liquidation of a construction company may have overturned the hitherto accepted view that set-off remains effective against a receiver.

The case in question could cost the principal tens of millions of dollars and is under appeal. The finding is potentially relevant in New Zealand because the provisions relied on are materially identical to those in our Companies Act and Personal Property Securities Act (PPSA).

The New South Wales Court of Appeal recently handed down an important judgment on the remuneration of registered liquidators.

Sakr concerned an appeal by Sanderson as liquidator of Sakr against an order determining his remuneration on anad valorem basis, without reference to his time attendances or hourly rate.  Due to the importance of the issues, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and Australian Restructuring Insolvency and Turnaround Association (ARITA) appeared and made submissions on the issue.

Liquidators entitled to a fair fee

The New South Wales Court of Appeal recently handed down an important judgment on the remuneration of registered liquidators.

In March 2013, four portable gas turbines worth about AU$50m had been leased to Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (Forge) by GE International Inc (GE) as lessor.  In February 2014 and March 2014 Forge was placed in administration and liquidation respectively.

After failing to sell Dick Smith as a going concern, receivers Ferrier Hodgson are now trying to sell the company’s New Zealand and Australian assets, including customer databases.  But does the Privacy Act 1993 allow it?

The legal position

A receiver or liquidator is bound by the provisions of the Privacy Act 1993.

Australia has an Insolvency Law Reform Bill in Parliament and plans for more change further down the track in the form of recommendations from the Australian Productivity Commission, which the Australian Government has signalled it will adopt.

These developments will be of interest to New Zealand insolvency practitioners, company directors and creditors.  We summarise the proposed changes and comment briefly on the possibility of similar reform in New Zealand.

Insolvency Law Reform Bill

​As New Zealand inches sloth-like toward a more regulated regime through the Insolvency Practitioners Bill, introduced in April 2010 and yet to have its third reading, Australian court decisions may become more relevant here.

After regulation, our two systems will still be different but less so than they are now, and already Australia provides a pointer to some of the issues which may arise here.

With that in mind, we have identified the top six insolvency law developments in Australia as we see them.

​It has become our recent practice to dust off the crystal ball and look ahead to what we expect will be the ‘big five’ insolvency issues.   

Below is a retrospective assessment of how we did last time and our best guess as to what will dominate the next 12 months.

The big issues for 2013

Our ‘top five’ picks for last year were:

In brief - Court sets aside DOCA in Helenic v Retail Adventures

The NSW Supreme Court has recently set aside a deed of company arrangement (DOCA) on the basis that it was prejudicial to creditors who voted against it. The court appointed liquidators to the company.

Declaration of interest: CBP Lawyers acted for the plaintiffs in the case discussed in this article and also represent a large number of unsecured creditors of Retail Adventures Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed).

In Madsen-Ries v Rapid Construction Ltd [2013] NZCA 489, the Court of Appeal considered an appeal concerning a liquidator's attempt to have a payment set aside.