Insolvency

When will a liquidator face personal liability for costs?

4 December, 2017

SUMMARY

In this article, we consider a number of recent authorities on whether an insolvent trustee company’s right of indemnity in trust assets is property of the company for the purposes of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), and the application of statutory priorities in the winding up of insolvent trading trusts. These authorities provide some clarification on the legal position for insolvency practitioners, but to ensure a consistent and coherent application of law, there needs to be definitive clarification from the High Court or the Parliament.
Until the law is clarified, the prudent course for insolvency practitioners appointed to an insolvent trustee in NSW remains (as noted in http://mccabes.com.au/insolvent-trading-trusts-twilight-zone/) to apply to the relevant Court to be appointed as receiver of the assets of the trust, in order to be able to sell and otherwise deal with the assets of the trust (and to ensure that costs, expenses and remuneration incurred acting as receivers and managers can be paid from the assets of the trust).

Background

It is uncontroversial that a trustee has a right of indemnity from trust assets for liabilities incurred while acting as trustee. It is also uncontroversial that property held on trust by a trustee for beneficiaries is not available to creditors of the trustee in insolvency, except to the extent that the liabilities were incurred while acting as trustee, having the effect of subrogating the creditors to the trustee’s right of indemnity.

The controversy, however, arises in relation to the question of the priority to be provided to the creditors subrogated to the insolvent trustee’s right of indemnity. Are those unsecured creditors to be treated on an equal (pari passu) basis or are those creditors to be paid from the funds recovered pursuant to the right of indemnity in accordance with the priorities in section 556(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act). For the insolvency provisions of the Act to apply, the insolvent trustee company’s right of indemnity from the assets of the trust for liabilities incurred while acting as trustee must be considered to be property of the company within the meaning of the Act.

Property of the Company

Until around 2016, the question of whether the trustee’s right of indemnity is property of the company for the purposes of the priorities in winding up was dealt with in the case of Re Suco Gold (1983) 7 ACLR 873, which provided that the proceeds of the trust should be distributed in accordance with the priorities provided for in the Corporations legislation (section 556 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)).

However, in a series of cases handed down by Brereton J in the NSW Supreme Court, and cases in the Federal Court of Australia, this position was reversed:

In Stansfield DIY Wealth Pty Limited [2014] NSWSC 1484, Brereton J found that a trustee company’s equitable lien over trust assets does not give rise to a beneficial interest in the trust assets, such that the assets of the trust cannot be considered to be “property of the Company” for the purposes of section 477(2) which provides the power of sale.
In Re Independent Contractor Services [2016] NSWSC 106 (Re Independent Contractor), Brereton J held that since section 556 of the Corporations Act only applies to “property of the Company”, the liquidators of the corporate trustee should distribute any proceeds from the realisation of trust assets amongst creditors in accordance with trust principles, rather than the priorities in section 556(1) of the Act.
In Robert Kite and Mark Hutchins in their capacity as liquidators of Mooney’s Contractors Pty Ltd (in liq) & Anor v Lance Mooney & Anor [2017] FCA 653, Markovic J in the Federal Court of Australia followed the decision of Re Independent Contractor Services and held that the trustee company’s indemnity and lien were not property of the company and accordingly the statutory priorities did not apply.

Victorian Court of Appeal decision in Commonwealth v Byrnes (in their capacity as joint and several receivers and managers of Amerind Pty Ltd (recs and mgrs. apptd) (in liq)) [2018] VSCA 41

On 28 February 2018, the Victorian Court of Appeal held that an insolvent trustee company’s right of indemnity in trust assets is property of the insolvent company for the purposes of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), such that the priorities in section 556(1) of the Act apply to the creditors of the trust.

In determining the appeal, the Victorian Court of Appeal returned to the position in Re Suco Gold, having relied on a number of authorities, particularly the decision of the High Court in Octavo Investments Pty Ltd v Knight (1979) 144 CLR 360 (Octavo). In Octavo, the High Court held that payments by a trustee to a trust creditor (exercising the right of indemnity) were recoverable by the liquidator of the trustee company as preference payments.

The Victorian Supreme Court held that “Octavo not only establishes that the right of exoneration is property which passes to the trustee in bankruptcy or the liquidator, but also that the respective statutory regimes must apply to the disposition of that property…” ([2018] VSCA 41, [100]). The Court noted that Octavo had been applied as authority for these propositions in subsequent cases including Re Enhill Pty Ltd [1983] 1 VR 561, and Re Suco Gold Pty Ltd (in liq) (1983) 33 SASR 99.

After considering the authorities in detail, the Court held that the trustee’s right of indemnity is property of the company, and therefore, that the insolvency legislation must apply, stating that “the first and most compelling reason for this is that High Court authority appears to require it. The High Court applied the preference provisions in Octavo. If the payments made in that case had not come from assets otherwise subject to the statutory insolvency regime there could not have been any preferential effect. Instead, there was a preference as between Octavo and other creditors ‘entitled to a share in the money paid’ ([2018] VSCA 41, [277]).

Full Federal Court decision in Jones (liquidator) v Matrix Partners Pty Ltd, in the matter of Killarnee Civil & Concrete Contractors Pty Ltd (in liq) [2018] FCAFC 40

On 21 March 2018, the Full Court of the Federal Court held that while it is “clear” that a corporate trustee’s right of indemnity is property of the company, the exercise of that proprietary right may require the leave of the court where it involves the sale of trust property. The Full Federal Court held that:

The liquidator of the insolvent trust company (where that company had been removed as trustee on insolvency by operation of the relevant trust deed) did not have the power to sell trust assets pursuant to section 477 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), on the basis that, while the liquidator has the power to deal with assets of the company based on the proprietary interest to secure the trustee’s right of exoneration, that power does not authorise the liquidator to exercise the lien and sell the underlying assets which had been held on trust for the beneficiaries ([2018] FCAFC 40, [89]-[91]);
“On the clear authority of Octavo Investments, Buckle and Bruton, the proprietary interest of the trustee in the assets otherwise held on trust in support of the right of indemnity is property of the company. Its exercise may require the leave of the Court, involving the sale of trust property” ([2018] FCAFC 40, [95]). Therefore, the statutory order of priorities (including in section 556 of the Act) should apply to assets under the control of the liquidator of the trustee company.

We note that Siopsis J dissented in relation to the question of whether the proceeds of the trust assets should be applied in accordance with the regime in the Act, stating that “in my view, it does not follow from the fact that, in Octavo Investments Pty Limited v Knight (1979) 144 CLR 360 and other cases, an insolvent trustee company’s right of indemnity in support of its right of exoneration, has been held to be “the property” of the company which is a proprietary interest held beneficially, that the statutory priority regime in section 556 of the Corporations Act applies to the assets which the insolvent company holds in its capacity as trustee upon which the right of indemnity in respect of the right of exoneration operates” ([2018] FCAFC 40, [160]).

While the issues have been further progressed by these recent cases, the dissenting part of the judgment delivered by Siopsis J suggests that the key issues in this area are not entirely resolved.

Conclusion

While the decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal in Re Amerind is not binding in NSW, the decision represents the ongoing uncertainty for insolvency professionals and their advisors in relation to the winding up of insolvent trustee companies in state courts, noting that the precedents in NSW remain of the opposite view in relation to how those winding ups are to be conducted.

However, the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court Australia, does provide some welcome certainty for practitioners in the Federal Court on these issues, although practitioners will still be required to approach the court for guidance on their appointments to insolvent trading trusts (or appointment as a receiver) where a power of sale is sought.

To ensure that a consistent and coherent approach is taken across all courts, there needs to be definitive clarification of this issue by the High Court or the Federal Parliament.

published by

Andrew Lacey

Managing Principal

Recent Insights

View all

Litigation and Dispute Resolution

Canadian Court elevates thumbs-up emoji to signature status

In June 2023, a Canadian Court in South-West Terminal Ltd v Achter Land and Cattle Ltd, 2023 SKKB 116, held that the "thumbs-up" emoji carried enough weight to constitute acceptance of contractual terms, analogous to that of a "signature", to establish a legally binding contract. Facts This case involved a contractual dispute between two parties namely South-West Terminal ("SWT"), a grain and crop inputs company; and Achter Land & Cattle Ltd ("ALC"), a farming corporation. SWT sought to purchase several tonnes of flax at a price of $17 per bushel, and in March 2021, Mr Mickleborough, SWT's Farm Marketing Representative, sent a "blast" text message to several sellers indicating this intention. Following this text message, Mr Mickleborough spoke with Mr Achter, owner of ALC, whereby both parties verbally agreed by phone that ALC would supply 86 metric tonnes of flax to SWT at a price of $17 per bushel, in November 2021. After the phone call, Mr Mickleborough applied his ink signature to the contract, took a photo of it on his mobile phone and texted it to Mr Archter with the text message, "please confirm flax contract". Mr Archter responded by texting back a "thumbs-up" emoji, but ultimately did not deliver the 87 metric tonnes of flax as agreed. Issues The parties did not dispute the facts, but rather, "disagreed as to whether there was a formal meeting of the minds" and intention to enter into a legally binding agreement. The primary issue that the Court was tasked with deciding was whether Mr Achter's use of the thumbs-up emoji carried the same weight as a signature to signify acceptance of the terms of the alleged contract. Mr Mickleborough put forward the argument that the emoji sent by Mr Achter conveyed acceptance of the terms of the agreement, however Mr Achter disagreed arguing that his use of the emoji was his way of confirming receipt of the text message. By way of affidavit, Mr Achter stated "I deny that he accepted the thumbs-up emoji as a digital signature of the incomplete contract"; and "I did not have time to review the Flax agreement and merely wanted to indicate that I did receive his text message." Consensus Ad Idem In deciding this issue, the Court needed to determine whether there had been a "formal meeting of the minds". At paragraph [18], Justice Keene considered the reasonable bystander test: " The court is to look at “how each party’s conduct would appear to a reasonable person in the position of the other party” (Aga at para 35). The test for agreement to a contract for legal purposes is whether the parties have indicated to the outside world, in the form of the objective reasonable bystander, their intention to contract and the terms of such contract (Aga at para 36). The question is not what the parties subjectively had in mind, but rather whether their conduct was such that a reasonable person would conclude that they had intended to be bound (Aga at para 37)." Justice Keene considered several factors including: The nature of the business relationship, notably that Mr Achter had a long-standing business relationship with SWT going back to at least 2015 when Mr Mickleborough started with SWT; and The consistency in the manner by which the parties conducted their business by way of verbal conversation either in person or over the phone to come to an agreement on price and volume of grain, which would be followed by Mr Mickleborough drafting a contract and sending it to Mr Achter. Mr Mickleborough stated, "I have done approximately fifteen to twenty contracts with Achter"; and The fact that the parties had both clearly understood responses by Mr Achter such as "looks good", "ok" or "yup" to mean confirmation of the contract and "not a mere acknowledgment of the receipt of the contract" by Mr Achter. Judgment At paragraph [36], Keene J said: "I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Chris okayed or approved the contract just like he had done before except this time he used a thumbs-up emoji. In my opinion, when considering all of the circumstances that meant approval of the flax contract and not simply that he had received the contract and was going to think about it. In my view a reasonable bystander knowing all of the background would come to the objective understanding that the parties had reached consensus ad item – a meeting of the minds – just like they had done on numerous other occasions." The court satisfied that the use of the thumbs-up emoji paralleled the prior abbreviated texts that the parties had used to confirm agreement ("looks good", "yup" and "ok"). This approach had become the established way the parties conducted their business relationship. Significance of the Thumbs-Up Emoji Justice Keene acknowledged the significance of a thumbs-up emoji as something analogous to a signature at paragraph [63]: "This court readily acknowledges that a thumbs-up emoji is a non-traditional means to "sign" a document but nevertheless under these circumstances this was a valid way to convey the two purposes of a "signature" – to identify the signator… and… to convey Achter's acceptance of the flax contract." In support of this, Justice Keene cited the dictionary.com definition of the thumbs-up emoji: "used to express assent, approval or encouragement in digital communications, especially in western cultures", confirming that the thumbs-up emoji is an "action in an electronic form" that can be used to allow express acceptance as contemplated under the Canadian Electronic Information and Documents Act 2000. Justice Keene dismissed the concerns raised by the defence that accepting the thumbs up emoji as a sign of agreement would "open the flood gates" to new interpretations of other emojis, such as the 'fist bump' and 'handshake'. Significantly, the Court held, "I agree this case is novel (at least in Skatchewan), but nevertheless this Court cannot (nor should it) attempt to stem the tide of technology and common usage." Ultimately the Court found in favour of SWT, holding that there was a valid contract between the parties and that the defendant breached by failing to deliver the flax. Keene J made a judgment against ALC for damages in the amount of $82,200.21 payable to SWT plus interest. What does this mean for Australia? This is a Canadian decision meaning that it is not precedent in Australia. However, an Australian court is well within its rights to consider this judgment when dealing with matters that come before it with similar circumstances. This judgment is a reminder that the common law of contract has and will continue to evolve to meet the everchanging realities and challenges of our day-to-day lives. As time has progressed, we have seen the courts transition from sole acceptance of the traditional "wet ink" signature, to electronic signatures. Electronic signatures are legally recognised in Australia and are provided for by the Electronic Transactions Act 1999 and the Electronic Transactions Regulations 2020. Companies are also now able to execute certain documents via electronic means under s 127 of the Corporations Act. We have also seen the rise of electronic platforms such as "DocuSign" used in commercial relationships to facilitate the efficient signing of contracts. Furthermore, this case highlights how courts will interpret the element of "intention" when determining whether a valid contract has been formed, confirming the long-standing principle that it is to be assessed objectively from the perspective of a reasonable and objective bystander who is aware of all the relevant facts. Overall, this is an interesting development for parties engaging in commerce via electronic means and an important reminder to all to be conscious of the fact that contracts have the potential to be agreed to by use of an emoji in today's digital age.

Published by Foez Dewan

29 August, 2023

Government

Venues NSW ats Kerri Kane: Venues NSW successful in overturning a District Court decision

The McCabes Government team are pleased to have assisted Venues NSW in successfully overturning a District Court decision holding it liable in negligence for injuries sustained by a patron who slipped and fell down a set of steps at a sports stadium; Venues NSW v Kane [2023] NSWCA 192 Principles The NSW Court of Appeal has reaffirmed the principles regarding the interpretation of the matters to be considered under sections5B of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW). There is no obligation in negligence for an occupier to ensure that handrails are applied to all sets of steps in its premises. An occupier will not automatically be liable in negligence if its premises are not compliant with the Building Code of Australia (BCA). Background The plaintiff commenced proceedings in the District Court of NSW against Venues NSW (VNSW) alleging she suffered injuries when she fell down a set of steps at McDonald Jones Stadium in Newcastle on 6 July 2019. The plaintiff attended the Stadium with her husband and friend to watch an NRL rugby league match. It was raining heavily on the day. The plaintiff alleged she slipped and fell while descending a stepped aisle which comprised of concrete steps between rows of seating. The plaintiff sued VNSW in negligence alleging the stepped aisle constituted a "stairwell" under the BCA and therefore ought to have had a handrail. The plaintiff also alleged that the chamfered edge of the steps exceeded the allowed tolerance of 5mm. The Decision at Trial In finding in favour of the plaintiff, Norton DCJ found that: the steps constituted a "stairwell" and therefore were in breach of the BCA due to the absence of a handrail and the presence of a chamfered edge exceeding 5mm in length. even if handrails were not required, the use of them would have been good and reasonable practice given the stadium was open during periods of darkness, inclement weather, and used by a persons of varying levels of physical agility. VNSW ought to have arranged a risk assessment of the entire stadium, particularly the areas which provided access along stepped surfaces. installation of a handrail (or building stairs with the required chamfered edge) would not impose a serious burden on VNSW, even if required on other similar steps. Issues on Appeal VNSW appealed the decision of Norton DCJ. The primary challenge was to the trial judge's finding that VNSW was in breach of its duty of care in failing to install a handrail. In addition, VNSW challenged the findings that the steps met the definition of a 'stairwell' under the BCA as well as the trial judge's assessment of damages. Decision on Appeal The Court of Appeal found that primary judge's finding of breach of duty on the part of VNSW could not stand for multiple reasons, including that it proceeded on an erroneous construction of s5B of the Civil Liability Act 2002 and the obvious nature of the danger presented by the steps. As to the determination of breach of duty, the Court stressed that the trial judge was wrong to proceed on the basis that the Court simply has regard to each of the seven matters raised in ss 5B and 5C of the CLA and then express a conclusion as to breach. Instead, the Court emphasised that s 5B(1)(c) is a gateway, such that a plaintiff who fails to satisfy that provision cannot succeed, with the matters raised in s 5B(2) being mandatory considerations to be borne in mind when determining s 5B(1)(c). Ultimately, regarding the primary question of breach of duty, the Court found that: The stadium contained hazards which were utterly familiar and obvious to any spectator, namely, steps which needed to be navigated to get to and to leave from the tiered seating. While the trial judge considered the mandatory requirements required by s5B(2) of the CLA, those matters are not exhaustive and the trial judge failed to pay proper to attention to the fact that: the stadium had been certified as BCA compliant eight years before the incident; there was no evidence of previous falls resulting in injury despite the stairs being used by millions of spectators over the previous eight years; and the horizontal surfaces of the steps were highly slip resistant when wet. In light of the above, the Court of Appeal did not accept a reasonable person in the position of VNSW would not have installed a handrail along the stepped aisle. The burden of taking the complained of precautions includes to address similar risks of harm throughout the stadium, i.e. installing handrails on the other stepped aisles. This was a mandatory consideration under s5C(a) which was not properly taken into account. As to the question of BCA compliance, the Court of Appeal did not consider it necessary to make a firm conclusion of this issue given it did not find a breach of duty. The Court did however indicated it did not consider the stepped aisle would constitute a "stairway" under the BCA. The Court of Appeal also found that there was nothing in the trial judge's reasons explicitly connecting the risk assessment she considered VNSW ought to have carried out, with the installation of handrails on any of the aisles in the stadium and therefore could not lead to any findings regarding breach or causation. As to quantum, the Court of Appeal accepted that the trial judge erred in awarding the plaintiff a "buffer" of $10,000 for past economic loss in circumstances where there was no evidence of any loss of income. The Court of Appeal set aside the orders of the District Court and entered judgment for VNSW with costs. Why this case is important? The case confirms there is no obligation in negligence for owners and operators of public or private venues in NSW to have a handrail on every set of steps. It is also a welcome affirmation of the principles surrounding the assessment of breach of duty under s 5B and s 5C of the CLA, particularly in assessing whether precautions are required to be taken in response to hazards which are familiar and obvious to a reasonable person.

Published by Leighton Hawkes

18 August, 2023

Litigation and Dispute Resolution

Expert evidence – The letter of instruction and involvement of lawyers

The recent decision in New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung [2023] FCAFC 67 (New Aim) has provided some useful guidance in relation to briefing experts in litigation.