In brief

Any legislation or action which seeks to alter the pari passu distribution of an insolvent company's property amongst its creditors needs to be very carefully and comprehensively considered, and have regard to accrued rights and interests.

The Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) specifies the circumstances in which a bankrupt is entitled to continue prosecuting legal proceedings after a sequestration order has been made.  Sections 60 and 116 of the Act allow a bankrupt to continue with their proceedings if the proceedings are “in respect of any personal injury or wrong done to” the bankrupt.  

In 2014, Forge Group Construction Pty (Forge) went into liquidation.  Receivers were also appointed.  The Forge insolvency has already been the subject of litigation in the Australian courts in respect of certain Australian PPSA issues (see our previous summary here).

Bell Group N. V (in liquidation) v Western Australia [2016] HCA 21

Alan Bond passed away last year, but the legal battles over the 1990 collapse of his Bell Group companies may yet continue. The High Court has declared state legislation, which was designed to end the long-running litigation by short-circuiting certain aspects of the Corporations Act 2001 (C’th), constitutionally invalid.

Background

Taxpayers in Western Australia have been left to foot the bill after Jirsch Sutherland, liquidator for the Kimberley Diamond Company Pty Ltd (“KDC”), used a legal loophole to handball expensive mining leases back to the Department of Mines and Petroleum (“DMP”).

Care and maintenance costs for KDC’s Ellendale diamond mine amount to $100,000 (AUD) a month and environmental rehabilitation obligations are estimated to be $40 million (AUD). The DMP has been servicing these costs since KDC went into liquidation.

This week’s TGIF considers the case of Bowesco Pty Ltd v Westpoint Management Ltd [2015] WASCA 184, which considered whether a guarantor had a right of subrogation enabling it to be repaid in advance of the second ranking creditor. 

BACKGROUND

A recent Western Australian decision has provided guidance on the limits of an insolvent contractor’s ability to enforce an adjudication determination where the principal has an offsetting claim.

On 16 January 2015, Justice Beech, of the Supreme Court of Western Australia, handed down his decision in the matters of Hamersley HMS Pty Ltd v Davis [2015] WASC 14 and Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v James [2015] WASC 10 (the Hamersley Decisions). In both matters, Hamersley sought to set aside determinations made by an adjudicator pursuant to the Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA) (CCA) and Forge Group Construction Pty Ltd (In Liq) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (Forge) sought leave to enforce the determinations.

The Supreme Court of Western Australia recently handed down its decision in Soil and Contracting Pty Ltd v Boban Pty Ltd [2014] WASC 402 which confirmed that, notwithstanding the operation of s 459R of the Corporations Act, the slip rule is available to extend the time limit within which a winding up application may be determined.

SECTION 459R