DoCA's: What Claims can be Released?

PK Riddell Investments Pty Ltd v Upwards Up And Gone Pty Ltd [2024] VSC 159 ("Riddell Investments")

In a recent case, the Victorian Supreme Court said that an accountant ‘would know well that a statutory demand involves strict time frames for response and potentially very significant consequences for a company’. The accountant failed to take appropriate steps to inform the company of the statutory demand.

The statutory demand process

If a company does not comply with a statutory demand within 21 days of service, it is deemed to be insolvent and the creditor may proceed to wind up the company.

In this week’s TGIF, we examine the recent case of Re Eliana Construction and Developing Group Pty Ltd [2023] VSC 639 which considers guarantor subrogation rights in insolvency scenarios.

Key takeaways

Industry participants who are close watchers of the different States’ and Territories’ security of payment regimes may have noticed a divergence between NSW and Victorian security of payment law in relation to failing corporate claimants. A recent NSW case regarding a head contractor’s unsuccessful challenge to the continuation of a deed of company arrangement may perpetuate a divergence in security of payment law in the context of insolvency.

Background – NSW law

Liquidators accepting a new appointment will have to think carefully if there's a possibility of disclaiming onerous property as part of that appointment.

In The Australian Sawmilling Company Pty Ltd (in liq) v Environment Protection Authority [2021] VSCA 294 (Australian Sawmilling), the Victorian Supreme Court of Appeal (VSCA) dismissed an appeal by the liquidators of The Australian Sawmilling Company Pty Ltd (TASCO) against a decision of Garde J of the Victorian Supreme Court (VSC) setting aside the liquidators’ disclaimer of land subject to significant environmental ‘clean up’ costs (Primary Judgment).

Victoria's Court of Appeal has reaffirmed the risk that a disclaimer of property may be set aside where the liquidators are indemnified, and the need for liquidators to be mindful where the company holds contaminated property.

The recent decision of Quin v Vlahos [2021] VCSA 205 (Quin) in the Victoria Supreme Court of Appeal has provided important commentary on when third party funds can be considered in determining a company’s solvency, as well as relying upon unreconciled accounts to prove solvency.

The recent Victorian Supreme Court of Appeal case of Quin v Vlahos [2021] VCSA 205 has clarified when third party funds, such as a sole director’s personal bank account, can be taken into account in determining a company’s solvency.

Key Takeaways

In Re Dessco Pty Ltd, the Victorian Supreme Court adjourned a winding up application for 50 days to allow time for creditors to vote on a restructuring plan.

Whilst the adjournment was opposed by the Plaintiff, the Judicial Registrar of the Court accepted the assessment formed by the Small Business Restructuring Practitioner that the company was eligible to avail itself of the new regime having regard to the criteria that must be satisfied (and the ‘just estimate’ approach adopted in respect of contingent liabilities) and the interests of the company’s creditors.