BACKGROUND

Stephanie Roebuck As Executor Of The Deceased Estate Of Suzanne Florence Bulwinkel (Roebuck) served Bulwinkel Enterprises Pty Ltd (Bulwinkel) with a statutory demand for the payment of $990,377.63 monies owing in connection with an unpaid trust distribution and loan between the parties. 

In the recent decision of First Strategic Development Corporation Limited (in liq) and Anor v Chan and Ors [2014] QSC 60, the Supreme Court of Queensland considered the solvency of a company with no assets or formalised line of credit, but with a director who claimed to be willing to fund the $2.5 million that the company had committed to spending.

FACTS

The decision of the Queensland Supreme Court (Court) in International Cat Manufacturing Pty Ltd (in liq) & Anor v Rodrick & Ors [2013] QSC 307 is a reminder that liquidators who commence proceedings may be personally liable for costs of the proceeding where they are unsuccessful in their claim.

FACTS

This week’s TGIF considers the recent Queensland Supreme Court decision in CGS Constructions (Qld) Pty Ltd [2022] QSC 28 where it dismissed an application to restrain liquidators from engaging the same solicitors as a major creditor to conduct public examinations.

Key Takeaways

This week’s TGIF considers the recent ruling of the Queensland Supreme Court in Re Gulf Aboriginal Development Company Ltd[2021] QSC 310, where the Court dismissed an application to terminate the winding up of Gulf Aboriginal Development Company Limited (Gulf).

Key Takeaways

This week’s TGIF considers the decision in Mujkic Family Company Pty Ltd v Clarke & Gee Pty Ltd [2018] TASFC 4, which concerns a rather novel issue – whether a solicitor acting for a shareholder might also owe a duty of care to the company in liquidation.

What happened?

In 2015, the Supreme Court of Queensland ordered that the corporate trustee of a family trust be wound up.

Today the Queensland Supreme Court confirmed that the liquidators of an insolvent company are ‘executive officers’ of that company under Queensland’s environmental laws, which means that the liquidators are required to use available funds to cause the company to comply with its environmental obligations under an environmental protection order issued to Linc.

Today the Queensland Supreme Court held that an insolvent company’s environmental obligations under State law were unaffected by the liquidators’ disclaimer of related property and resource tenures. This decision changes the previous understanding of liquidators’ powers and the order of priority in which claims will be paid in a liquidation, and may have broader implications for insolvent companies that are subject to obligations under State laws.

In Short

The Situation: A liquidator can reject a "double proof" for what is, in substance, the same debt as another accepted proof of debt.

The Question: When are liquidators justified in rejecting what could arguably be a double proof?