Yesterday the Supreme Court published its long-awaited decision in the Joe & Joe Developments litigation.
The litigation has been the subject of much gossip in the industry as it concerned allegations of rampant overcharging by insolvency practitioners and their lawyers. Commentators and industry observers have been poised, salivating, waiting for the scandal to break.
In the event, as is often the case with gossip, the facts were found not to justify the hype. Continue reading
On Friday, the NSW Supreme Court handed down two further decisions in its drive to hammer home to liquidators the importance of proportionality when claiming remuneration.
In both cases, his Honour Brereton J built on his earlier decision in AAA Financial Intelligence Ltd (in liquidation) (No 2)  NSWSC 1270 (see update here), emphasising that hourly-rate-based charging – even if every attendance is meticulously recorded and all of the time spent can be justified – may be a wholly inappropriate basis for claiming remuneration.
A recent Supreme Court decision has made it clear that the ATO cannot hide behind its own internal policies as an excuse not to pay a liquidator’s costs of court action to recover unfair preferences. Continue reading
In Kassem and Secatore v Commissioner of Taxation  FCA 152, the Federal Court dealt, fairly brutally, with three arguments often raised by the ATO in the defence of unfair preference claims Continue reading
In a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales handed down this morning, a sharp reminder was given to insolvency practitioners – if you spend creditors’ money on futile court proceedings, you might find that it is not creditors’ money you’ve been spending. Continue reading