Michael Murray is an Australian author and commentator on corporate and personal insolvency law and related issues, in Australia and internationally. He has a strong law and policy background, is independent of any connections, and his views are his own. He gives no legal advice.
This is a free access website containing various on-going commentary about a range of issues in law, legal policy and reform, with some particular emphasis on corporate and personal insolvency, professional regulation, technology, ethics, law reform and the courts and the legislature.
peter@murrayslegal.com.au
m +8613 801 763 568
michael@murrayslegal.com.au
m +61 402 248 353
Copyright 2019 Murrays Legal
Subscribe now
Insolvency practitioners’ duties of neutrality
Liquidators and administrators, and trustees, when their appointments are challenged, have a duty of neutrality, to provide relevant facts to parties, and to the court, in order for the concern about the challenge to be determined on its merits.
The voluntary administrator’s appointment in Condor Blanco was successfully challenged, and some legal guidance was given in the reasons for judgment. But the Court has now said that the administrator did not response partially or neutrally to the challenge to his appointment and made costs orders against him: In the matter of Condor Blanco Mines Ltd (No. 2) [2016] NSWSC 1304.
While allegations in support of the contention that the appointment should be terminated were not such as to require that he “simply vacate the field”, they did indicate that there were serious questions to be tried. He had indicated in correspondence that if anyone took proceedings, “he would give all necessary evidence and neither consent to nor oppose the grant of the relief sought”.
Having done this, he then abandoned it through his solicitor’s subsequent letters suggesting that costs might be sought against those taking the proceedings.
“Such warnings (or threats) are standard issue weapons deployed by lawyers engaged by clients to run hard-fought adversarial litigation. By having his solicitor bring those weapons to bear as and when he did, [the administrator] obviously intended that the individuals should re-assess their commitment to the litigation. He thereby distorted the process in which he had originally said he would cooperate. He adopted an unambiguously adversarial stance”.
“There was, in that respect, a clear and grave desertion of the position of essential neutrality that it was [his] duty to adhere (scil to)”.
He
“did not act in and about the litigation in a way that constructively facilitated resolution of the important matter of Condor’s status. He abandoned a stated position of essential neutrality in favour of a partisan and adversarial role’.
The administrator was denied his legal costs of the proceedings, and he was ordered to pay half of the company’s costs.
There was no issue raised in the judgment about his lawyer’s involvement in the partisan and adversarial role that he took.
Latest
Australian personal insolvency reform for COVID-19 impacted debtors
The Australian government’s proposed retention of the restrictions of bankruptcy on COVID-19 impacted business proprietors
Liquidator’s registration suspended not cancelled, by agreement
In A liquidator disciplinary decision – some regulatory insights | Murrays Legal Commentary , I
New Zealand and Australian voluntary administration law
New Zealand adopted Australia’s Part 5.3A voluntary administration regime some years ago, in Part 15A
Popular
Featured
The Alternative Financial Review
Property prices Perth ‘as good as it’s likely to get’ for rental affordability With little
ASIC’s “significant element of vexation”
ASIC has failed in an application to have an inquiry conducted into joint liquidators’ conduct
Report on targeting of people in financial hardship
The Economics References Committee has issued its report, on time, following its inquiry into ‘Credit