Yesterday, the Supreme Court of New South Wales delivered a decision of relevance to the practice of every liquidator in Australia.
Justice Brereton, whose recent decisions on insolvency practitioner remuneration have drawn a fair bit of attention, delivered a complex decision in which he reached conclusions of significance to any liquidator winding up a corporate trustee, considering a claim for superannuation, or seeking court approval of fees. 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 surprising Federal Court decision has determined that a liquidator “is not an officer of the corporation for the purposes of the [Corporations] Act”.
In March last year, Faji (Australia) Constructions Pty Limited v AC Professional Accounting Pty Ltd  NSWSC 180, Barrett J said that solicitors must not swear Affidavits in support of Statutory Demands on the basis of information and belief. If they do, the statutory demand is liable to be set aside with costs without the court even bothering to look at whether there might be a genuine dispute or offsetting claim – all you need for the Affidavit to be sworn by the solicitor and you’re home free (and the same presumably applies to Affidavits sworn by the staff debt-collection agencies and anybody else who makes an Affidavit based solely on instructions).
This decision has recently been affirmed Continue reading