3 May 2023
Because respondents failed to file defences or take steps after objection, the liquidator's notices under ss 294-295 were effective and default judgments were entered for the liquidated amounts sought; the transaction involving Amber Hansen was set aside and costs were awarded on a 2B basis.
5 Sept 2013
On the balance of probabilities the company did not make a payment or equivalent to the trustees; the ledger entries reflected a tripartite arrangement that produced a benefit to the shareholders by way of set-off and reinstatement of the shareholders' debt is required; accordingly the court ordered repayment by the shareholders under s 295(c) and recognised the trustees' original debt claim under s 295(g).
13 Feb 2013
Court held the running account single-transaction analysis must take into account the whole continuing business relationship; payments during that relationship did not give Metalcraft a preference, but the final $12,500 payment (made the day before liquidation under unusual circumstances and not integral to the continuing relationship) was a preferential insolvent transaction and is recoverable; Metalcraft failed to establish the s296 defence because a reasonable business person in its position would have had grounds to suspect insolvency and Metalcraft did not prove it gave value or altered…
18 Feb 2009
The Court refused to order immediate payment under s58(2)(b) because the applicant had not demonstrated receipt of funds, the estate value was uncertain and there was a risk of double recovery; instead the disposition was set aside and the Court ordered transfer of the bankrupt's interest under s58(2)(a) and, pursuant to s58(3), imposed ancillary security by requiring registration of a first debenture over the applicant's assets (notional amount $344,000) to secure the bankrupt's entitlement until actual distribution.
18 Apr 2007
On the totality of the evidence the payments were made by the company or from company funds, were otherwise than in the ordinary course of business, were made when the company was unable to pay its debts and had the effect of preferring the applicant; the applicant failed to prove good faith and alteration of position under s296(3), so the Court refused to deny recovery and dismissed the applicant's s294(2) application.
20 Sept 2006
Because Fastlane failed to apply within the s294 period the transfer was set aside by operation of the statute and the liquidators were obliged to seek recovery; however the Court must exercise its s296(3) discretion and found it inequitable to order repayment given the liquidators would not have pursued the notice had they known the true facts, so no recovery was ordered but costs were awarded against Fastlane for failing to provide timely, adequate evidence or to apply to protect its position.