This week’s TGIF considers a recent decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal where a company’s creditors successfully opposed an application by the company’s liquidators to compromise proceedings commenced on the company’s behalf.

This week’s TGIF examines a decision of the Victorian Supreme Court which found that several proofs had been wrongly admitted or rejected, and had correct decisions been made, the company would not have been put into liquidation.

BACKGROUND

This week’s TGIF takes a look at the recent case of Mills Oakley (a partnership) v Asset HQ Australia Pty Ltd [2019] VSC 98, where the Supreme Court of Victoria found the statutory presumption of insolvency did not arise as there had not been effective service of a statutory demand due to a typographical error in the postal address.

What happened?

There is now a divergence between New South Wales and Victorian authority on whether a company in liquidation may make a claim under Security of Payment legislation. The common law position in NSW is now that a company in liquidation can bring a Security of Payment claim. This decision will be rendered somewhat academic in NSW following enactment of legislation to come into force on a (currently unspecified) date in 2019 which has the effect of overriding this decision.

Seymour Whyte Constructions Pty Ltd v Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd (In liquidation) [2019] NSWCA 11

The NSW Court of Appeal has decided that SOPA enforcement is available to claimants in liquidation in NSW, contrary to its equivalent Court in Victoria.   The same statutory words now have consequences that differ north and south of the border.

Why does this matter? 

This week’s TGIF considers In the matter of MJM(WA) Enterprises Pty Ltd (in liq) [2018] NSWSC 944, where the Court approved a liquidator’s remuneration but deferred decisions about trust distributions until after the Re Amerind litigation finishes.

What happened?

The company operated two barbershops in Perth as trustee for a family trust before liquidators were appointed in May 2017.

The Victorian Court of Appeal and a Full Court of the Federal Court have each recently held that the statutory priority regime applies to the winding up of companies that act as trustees of trading trusts, confirming that employee claims and a liquidator’s remuneration and costs are priority debts. Special leave to appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision has been sought.

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

In the recent decision of Cant v Mad Brothers Earthmoving,[1] the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Justices Beach, McLeish and Hargrave) considered whether the liquidator of Eliana Construction and Developing Group (in liquidation) (Eliana) could establish that a payment made to an unsecured creditor of Eliana by one of Eliana’s related companies was an unfair preference.

Liquidators need to be mindful that a disclaimer of property may be challenged. The Supreme Court of Victoria underscored a key issue in establishing "prejudice" to creditors in a liquidation, holding that a disclaimer of property may be set aside where the liquidators are indemnified.