A recent decision in the High Court of Australia gave liquidators of landlords extra powers to disclaim leases that are registered on title. For example, if a landlord leases a site to a tenant, and the landlord subsequently goes into liquidation, the liquidator does not have to abide by the terms of the lease, and may refuse to recognise the lease and ask the tenant to vacate the site.

Facts

The Victorian Court of Appeal recently held that a payment, disposition or grant of security by a company to a person on behalf of, or for the benefit of a director of the company, extends to a mortgage of land given by the company to a creditor of the director in consideration of a covenant by the creditor not to sue the director. 

As a result, insolvency practitioners now have stronger judicial guidance as to what constitutes a 'benefit' for the purposes of setting aside or varying voidable transactions, which should assist in recovering proceeds for unsecured creditors.

The Implications of the Willmott Growers Decision

On 4 December 2013 the High Court handed down its decision in Willmott Growers Group Inc v Willmott Forests Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed (In Liquidation)) [2013] HCA 51 (Willmott Growers case), clarifying the scope of a liquidator’s statutory power of disclaimer.

The High Court has recently confirmed in Willmott Growers Group Inc v Willmott Forests Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (In Liquidation) that a liquidator of a landlord company has power to disclaim a lease, thereby terminating the landlord’s liabilities and the tenant’s rights under the lease.

Following such a disclaimer, the tenant would then be left to prove its loss as an unsecured creditor in the winding up of the landlord company.

In the case of Bosi Security Services Ltd v Wright [2013] WASC 431, in which the court granted an interlocutory injunction preventing the sale of land by receivers despite acknowledging that the applicants’ case under the Trade Practices Act and Australian Consumer Law was not a strong one and had obvious deficiencies.

Facts

The High Court has ruled that liquidators of lessors can disclaim leases, thus terminating the leasehold interests of tenants.

However, yesterday's High Court decision in Willmott Growers Group Inc. v Willmott Forests Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (In Liquidation) [2013] HCA 51 leaves open another issue: do liquidators need to get Court approval before exercising this power, and, if so, how easy or difficult would it be to get that approval?

Key Points

Key Points

The High Court in Willmott Growers Group¹ has upheld a Victorian Court of Appeal decision that a lease can be disclaimed by the liquidator of a landlord. The decision will have very significant implications for tenants including:

In brief - High Court confirms that liquidators of landlord companies can disclaim leases, terminating lessees' rights

In our September 2012 insolvency update, we reported on Re Willmott Forests Ltd [2012] VSC 29, where the Victorian Court of Appeal found that a leasehold interest in land is extinguished by a liquidator's disclaimer of the lease pursuant to section 568(1) of the Australian Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

The High Court of Australia recently decided that when a landlord goes into liquidation, the liquidator may be able to disclaim a lease granted by the landlord.

For a tenant there can be very serious and very expensive consequences if a lease it has taken is disclaimed by its landlord’s liquidator.

A tenant may, however be able to take some steps to protect itself and avoid the expensive and significant consequences of a disclaimer of a lease by the landlord’s liquidator.

What does disclaim mean?