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 Supreme Court of Victoria decision in Lofthouse v Environmental Consultants International Pty Ltd & Ors [2012] VSC 416 outlines the factors the Court will take into account when considering whether to make a pooling order and considers when a liquidator may be remunerated out of the assets of pooled companies.

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’).

In the recent Court of Appeal decision of Re Willmott Forests Ltd [2012] VSC 29, the Court held that a lessee’s leasehold interest can be extinguished by a liquidator appointed to a lessor company using the disclaimer power in s 568 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Act). 

Facts

A liquidator of a landlord company who disclaims a lease under section 568(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), a section largely similar to section 269 of the Companies Act 1993 (NZ), does so with full effect, leaving the land unencumbered by the interests of tenants.

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.