Highlights

In Cant v Mad Brothers Earthmoving [2020] VSCA 198, the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria has clarified the application of the unfair preference regime in the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to payments made by third parties at the direction of a debtor to its creditors. In short, a payment to a creditor by a third party at the direction of the debtor will not be ‘from’ the debtor unless the payment diminishes the assets available to the debtor’s other creditors.

Background

This week’s TGIF examines a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria in which an unfair preference claim was defended on the basis that the liquidators had been invalidly appointed and lacked standing to continue the proceeding.

Key takeaways

The recent Supreme Court of Victoria decision in Re National Personnel Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2012] VSC 508 confirms that the Court will take a broad approach in determining the true employer where the employer-employee relationship is confused and the liquidator is in doubt as to the identification of the employer.

Background

The recent decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal in Re Willmott Forests Limited (Receivers and Managers appointed) (in liquidation) [2012] VSCA 202 gives liquidators comfort when disclaiming leases (as the liquidator of a landlord) pursuant to s 568(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (‘the Act’).

Key Points:

The decision will give liquidators the certainty of knowing that disclaimer of a lease means that a tenant no longer has any interest in the land.

A recent decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal has confirmed that a liquidator of a landlord can disclaim a lease with full effect, so that the land is no longer encumbered by a tenant's interest.

While the winding up of a company is a last resort in the context of shareholder oppression, the discretion to order a winding up will be exercised by the Courts if the circumstances dictate that it is the most appropriate remedy, such as where it will provide finality and certainty for the shareholders without undermining the value of the company’s projects to a potential purchaser on winding up.

The recent Victorian Supreme Court case of Grapecorp Management Pty Ltd (in liq) v Grape Exchange Management Euston Pty Ltd provided an interesting analysis of when set-off, pursuant to section 553C(1) of the Corporations Act 2001, may be claimed.

When can a set-off be claimed against debts owed to an insolvent company?

The recent Victorian Supreme Court decision of Grapecorp Management Pty Ltd (in liq) v Grape Exchange Management Euston Pty Ltd [2012] VSC 112 clarifies the application of set-off provisions for insolvent companies.

BACKGROUND

Grape Exchange Management Euston Pty Ltd (Grape Exchange) provided various services in relation to vines and grapes, pursuant to a Management Agreement with Grapecorp Management Pty Ltd (in liq) (Grapecorp).

Grape Exchange claimed that it had a right of set-off under section 553C of the Corporations Act.

The Supreme Court of Victoria has recently given some guidance on when a secured creditor who is entitled to enforce a charge over "the whole, or substantially the whole of the company's property" can validly appoint a company administrator.