Group costs orders – The way of the future?
The Victorian Supreme Court’s decision in Fox v Westpac Banking Corporation; Crawford v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited[1] was the first determination of an application seeking a group costs order in Australia. Whilst the Plaintiffs’ applications were ultimately unsuccessful, the Court decided to adjourn the applications (rather than dismiss them altogether) in order […]
ReadmoreIs a Mortgagee’s 60% default interest rate just a collateral advantage? Or is it unfair and unconscionable?
Mortgagees should not only consider the content of a mortgage term, but the effect of its operation. If the effect of the mortgage terms could be seen to operate unfairly or unconscionably to a mortgagor, as discussed in the recent decision of the New South Wales Supreme Court in First Mortgage Capital Pty Ltd v […]
ReadmoreThe Director Identification Number (DIN) regime is here – Implications for directors
The Commonwealth Government has introduced the Director Identification Number (DIN) regime through reforms to Part 9.1A of the Corporations Act. From 1 November 2021, DINs became mandatory for all company directors. DINs are expected to assist regulators with their regulatory functions, such as combatting illegal phoenixing activities. DINs of course mean more admin for company […]
ReadmoreGazing into the crystal ball – when assessing whether a company is insolvent, how far into the future should the Court look?
In Anchorage Capital Master Offshore Ltd v Sparkes (No 3); Bank of Communications Co Ltd v Sparkes (No 2),[1] the NSW Supreme Court handed down judgment in two proceedings (which were heard together) arising from the failure of Arrium and its broader corporate group.[2] Of particular interest to insolvency practitioners, the Court was asked to […]
ReadmoreLiquidators beware: pitfalls in admitting proofs of debt
The Federal Court’s decision in Tuscan Capital Partners Pty Ltd v Trading Australia Pty Ltd (in liq)[1] concerns an interlocutory application made by a creditor to review the liquidator’s decision to admit a proof of debt. Background The proof of debt was lodged by Fishbank Development Corporation Pty Ltd (FDC) in the amount of $56,289.43, […]
ReadmoreAppointed too late – company fails to avoid liquidation
Section 440A(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) requires the Court to adjourn a winding up application if it is satisfied that it would be in the best interest of creditors for the company to continue under administration rather than be wound up. In the matter of Integrated Green Energy Solutions Ltd (administrators […]
ReadmoreWho can use documents obtained in public examinations and when?
In LCM Operations Pty Ltd, in the matter of 316 Group Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) [2021] FCA 324, the Federal Court considered whether a third party who has been assigned a company’s claim by a liquidator breached the Harman undertaking with respect to documents obtained through public examinations. What happened? 316 Group Pty Ltd (316) […]
ReadmoreTo terminate or not to terminate? Proving solvency following the making of a winding up order
Hughes, in the matter of Substar Holdings Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (No. 2)[1] (Substar No. 2) considers the Court’s discretionary power to terminate the winding up of a company pursuant to s 482(1) of the Corporations Act 2001. Substar No. 2 follows the decision of Hughes, in the matter of Substar Holdings Pty Ltd (in […]
ReadmoreWhat did the Federal Court say when it recently considered joint legal professional privilege?
In Kayler-Thomson v Colonial First State Investments Limited (No 2),[1] the Federal Court considered the issue of joint legal professional privilege and confirmed that it can only be waived by the actions of all holders of the privilege. Background Mr Keith Kayler-Thomson (Mr Kayler-Thomson) was an applicant in representative proceedings brought against Colonial First State […]
ReadmoreImportance of properly formulating offers made in proceedings involving counterclaims
In Wiggins Island Coal Export Terminal Pty Limited v Civil Mining & Construction Pty Ltd[1], the Queensland Court of Appeal considered the costs implications of an ‘all up’ offer made under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (the UCPR) and whether it could determine the ‘net result’ of two orders (each order made in […]
Readmore“Let there be a vote” – Victorian Supreme Court grants adjournment under recent Small Business Restructuring Reforms
In Re Dessco Pty Ltd,[1] 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 […]
ReadmoreCan parties to a mortgage contract out of a statutory limitation period? Yes, according to the High Court
Dismissing an appeal from the Supreme Court of Queensland, the High Court of Australia in Price v Spoor[1] considered three principle questions: Whether parties to a mortgage can agree that the mortgagor will not plead a defence of statutory time limitation, or whether such an agreement is void and unenforceable as contrary to public policy; […]
Readmore
