Rouse Lawyers

- The Law Firm For Business Owners and Entrepreneurs -

Call us: (07) 3648 9900

  • Home
  • Expertise
    • Corporate & Commercial
    • Private Wealth & Tax
    • Franchising
    • Technology
    • Intellectual Property
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Employment Law
    • Estate Planning
    • Property Law
  • About
    • Our Team
  • Reviews
  • Articles
  • Careers
  • Legal Guide
  • Contact

Unfair Preferences in Insolvency

Matthew Rouse

Part of a liquidator’s role is to ensure an orderly and equitable distribution of the company’s assets between creditors.  A liquidator will scrutinise company records to determine whether any creditor has received an inequitable distribution from the company before the winding up – that is, that the creditor received preferential treatment.

Usually preferential treatment is in the form of a payment, but almost any transfer of property and even some creation of property (for example, a mortgage) may be an unfair preference.

Recovering unfair preferences

In order for preference payments to be recoverable, the creditor must have received more than it would receive from the company in respect of a debt if the transaction were set aside and the creditor were to prove for the debt in the winding up of the company.

Only liquidators may seek to recover unfair preferences.

The Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) provides that in order to recover an unfair preference, the liquidator must show that:

  • there was a transaction between the company being wound-up and one of its creditors;
  • the transaction occurred during the time the company was insolvent (for a non-related creditor, the relevant period is within 6 months before the relation-back day);
  • as a result of the transaction, the creditor received preferential treatment over other creditors; and
  • the creditor suspected or ought to have suspected that the company was insolvent at the time of the transaction.

Statutory defence

In order to maintain a defence to an unfair preferences claim, a creditor must prove on both a subjective and objective basis that the creditor had no grounds for suspecting the insolvency of the company.

The defence is set out in section 588FG of the Corporations Act, and the creditor bears the onus of proof. In establishing the defence the creditor must prove:

  • it became a party to the transaction in good faith;
  • at the time of the transaction, the creditor had no reasonable grounds to suspect the company was insolvent;
  • a reasonable person in the creditor’s position would have had no grounds for suspecting the company was insolvent; and
  • the creditor provided valuable consideration for the transaction.

Whilst each of these elements must be proved by the creditor, the main limb of the statutory defence is that the creditor had no suspicion of insolvency.  An example of the operation of this limb is where a liquidator says there were grounds for suspecting insolvency if the company was slow to pay the creditor, or that the creditor had demanded payment.  Case law tells us however that this alone will generally be insufficient to establish suspicion.

Creditors who receive demands from liquidators in relation to unfair preferences should be aware that there may be a defence available to them in relation to all or some of the transactions.

If you would like more information about these issues, please contact Matthew Rouse or Eloise Pawley on +61 7 3648 9900.

August 15, 2014 Filed Under: Commercial Litigation

Enter your details below to contact a professional Commercial Litigation lawyer.

↓

We add new contacts to Rouse Lawyers database. We may send you information or service offerings we believe may be relevant to you. If you agree to being contacted by us in the future, send your enquiry. Naturally, you can unsubscribe any time.

Client Reviews

"Achieves excellent, cost effective results"

“Time and money are big factors in disputes. Eloise takes the pain and stress out of the process, frees up my time to focus on business, and achieves excellent, cost effective results. She provides timely, commercial advice and is always just a phone call away.”

Terry CuskellyQueensland Facility Services

“We highly recommend Rouse Lawyers”

“Camfil Farr is a multinational organisation and we use lawyers across the world. Rouse Lawyers, was chosen as alternative to the top tier, and have acted for us in a number of matters concerning our Australian operations. We have found their strategic advice and alternate approaches to the law to be highly valuable and unique. We highly recommend Rouse Lawyers”

Bruce LandfordCamfil Farr

"It's hard to find good lawyer that understands a "tech" business - Rouse Lawyers are that firm…"

“A Big Thank You” to Matthew & the Team at Rouse Lawyers – have assisted me & my business in so many different legal items – from wills to buying property/structuring our business/trademarks/negotiating large deals/spam/privacy issues/lease on our 4 different offices… It’s hard to find good lawyer that understands a “tech” business – Rouse Lawyers are that firm… so skilled in many areas.”

Andrew ReeceInspect Real Estate

PRIVACY POLICY DISCLAIMER TERMS

BRISBANE OFFICE

Ph: +61 7 3648 9900

Fx: +61 7 3648 9911

Level 2, 22 Wandoo St, Fortitude Valley, QLD 4006

17-Page Guide Reveals:

How To Protect Your Business and Your Assets While Allowing Your Business To Thrive

Written by Matthew Rouse, commercial lawyer and founder of Rouse Lawyers.

17-Page Guide Reveals:

How To Protect Your Business and Your Assets While Allowing Your Business To Thrive

Written by Matthew Rouse, commercial lawyer and founder of Rouse Lawyers.

Sign Up To Our Newsletter