Australia: NZ Insolvency Bulletin

Last Updated: 2 August 2006


  • Directors of a 'phoenix company' ordered to compensate creditors
  • Official Assignee obtains share of director's home for creditors
  • Court of appeal sends warning to 'sleeping' directors
  • Working with Voluntary Administration - Administrators potential liability for legal costs

Directors Of A ‘Phoenix Company’ Ordered To Compensate Creditors

On 4 July 2006, the High Court at Christchurch found that two directors failed to act in good faith and in the best interests of their company contrary to the Companies Act 1993. The two directors sold the business of their old company Aeromarine Limited at an under value to a new company they created, Aeromarine Industries Limited and subsequently changed the old company name. Ultimately, the directors were ordered to pay a sufficient sum to meet the debts of unsecured creditors of the old company plus interest and costs.

The facts

Mr & Mrs Robb were directors of a company, Aeromarine Limited. Aeromarine predominantly undertook light industrial work through fabricating fibreglass for a number of small customers.

The plaintiffs, Mr Sojourner and Mr Hiscock each contracted with Aeromarine in 2000 and 2001 respectively for Aeromarine to build luxury catamarans.

As the contracts progressed, it became apparent to the directors that Aeromarine would incur a loss of at least $300,000 if it completed the contracts. At that time the plaintiffs were only contingent creditors.

As a solution, the directors decided to form the new company, Aeromarine Industries Limited.

In February 2003, the new company purchased the business of the old company but placed only a nominal value on the goodwill (it was later conceded that no real value was placed on the goodwill). Most of the actual creditors of the old company were paid out. But there were no assets in the old company to meet the plaintiffs’ contingent liabilities.

After the business of the old company was sold to the new company, the old company changed its name to Kut Price Yachts. The old company was placed in liquidation later in 2003 and the plaintiffs proved as unsecured creditors in the winding up for about $300,000. Although their proofs of debt were admitted they received nothing.

The parties’ contentions

The plaintiffs commenced proceedings against the directors alleging a breach of the directors duty to act in good faith and in the best interests of the company contrary to section 131(1) of the Companies Act 1993. The plaintiffs’ principal allegations were that the transfer of the business was for the purpose of avoiding the contingent liabilities under the boat contracts and the sale of the business of the old company was not at arms length and was at an under value.

The directors said that the sale of the business to the new company was:

  • To clean up the business vehicle for a possible sale to a third party;
  • To avoid the possibility of trading whilst insolvent;
  • To try and preserve the viable aspects of the business for building up to its former state.
  • To 'ring-fence' (ie, to put a fence around the core business of the company to protect the present structure) the issues with the plaintiffs.

The directors duties and the outcome

The Court found that the directors were not acting in good faith when the business was sold to the new company. The fact that the directors thought they were acting in the best interests of the company by ‘ring-fencing’ the loss making contracts was irrelevant.

The directors were ordered to pay the liquidator of the old company a sum sufficient to meet the plaintiffs claims and that of other disappointed unsecured creditors plus interest and costs.

What the decision means

This decision casts a high burden upon directors to consider the interests of contingent creditors. It also sounds a warning to directors considering starting fresh with a new company using the old business that the Courts will not tolerate the use of phoenix companies to defeat the interests of creditors (in this case contingent creditors).

To comply with their duty, directors starting a new company with the ‘old business’ will need to ensure that the new company purchases the business of the old company at ‘arms length’. That means a proper valuation process needs to be undertaken.

The decision is also of interest because under the new insolvency law regime the directors actions would have exposed them to criminal penalties.

In the Insolvency Law Reform Bill, there are restrictions on the use of phoenix companies by directors to defeat the legitimate interest of creditors. Clause 386A of the Bill provides that the director of a failed company cannot be the director of a company, or take part in the business activities of a company, that has the same or a similar name as the failed company for a period of five years after liquidation of the old company. A breach of this provision will be an offence carrying a penalty of up to 5 years imprisonment or $200,000 fine. Directors can also be personally liable for the debts of the phoenix company.
Article by Craig Edwards, Lawyer, Auckland office

Official Assignee Obtains Share Of Director’s Home For Creditors

The recent High Court decision of Crawford v Eades & Anor shows that the family home is by no means a castle. The Official Assignee successfully set aside a director’s transfer of the family property to a trust two years before his bankruptcy.

The bankrupt operated a small photographic retail and film processing shop. In 1998 the company began struggling with difficult trading conditions caused by the advent of a cut price photographic developing centre introduced by The Warehouse. The final blow came in mid 2001 when a supplier withdrew extended trade credit support, and the business was left with little choice but to cease trading.

The company was subsequently placed into liquidation in September 2001 with the OA appointed as liquidator. It transpired that the company was unable to pay a dividend to unsecured creditors. On that advice, the lessor of the company’s premises sought to enforce a personal guarantee that the director had given to recover its outstanding monies. Unfortunately for the lessor the director couldn’t meet the debts owing and he was adjudged bankrupt in May 2003.

Normally this would have been the end of the story. However, the OA delved into a transaction that the bankrupt and his wife had entered into in late 2000 in which the bankrupt’s share in the family home was transferred to a family trust via an accelerated gifting programme, known as the ‘lease for life’ technique. The transaction comprised two parts, namely a lease and a sale and purchase agreement where the bankrupt and his wife leased their family home to themselves for the duration of their lives, and then sold it to a family trust at a zero value thereby circumventing the normal gifting obligations. The transfers were undertaken on the advice of a business consultant when the bankrupt’s company was experiencing the difficult trading conditions mentioned above.

As a result of their inquiries, the OA issued two notices in 2005. The first to set aside the transfer of the bankrupt’s share of his family home to the trustees of a family trust, and the second to set aside a lease from the bankrupt and his wife as the owners of the property to themselves as lessees.

The bankrupt and his wife applied to the High Court for orders reversing the OA’s notices but were unsuccessful.

The Court held that both the sale and purchase agreement and lease were void for want of consideration. The sale and purchase agreement was void because the trustees had paid nothing for the House. As for the lease, although the bankrupt and his wife had undertaken to pay all outgoings (which would normally be treated as consideration), in the context of this transaction, the Court found that these were obligations which already rested with the bankrupt and his wife prior to the lease and it was not possible to give themselves, as valuable consideration, obligations that they already had.

The Court had little trouble finding that the bankrupt’s reason for transferring his house to the trust had been motivated, in part, by a need to protect it from the circling creditors, and therefore fell short of the requirement that a gift be made in good faith.

Interestingly, the bankrupt’s financial advisor who gave evidence in support of the transactions said that he had advised a number of clients on the ‘lease for life’ technique and that he was aware that some legal firms ‘particularly in the city of Auckland regularly use the lease for life technique’ for the same purpose as the bankrupt.

This case shows that creditors should not always be put off in pursuing debtors who have arranged their financial affairs in complicated trust structures.
Article by Matthew Hayes, Lawyer, Auckland office

Court Of Appeal Sends Warning To ‘Sleeping’ Directors

The Court of Appeal judgment in Mason v Lewis, demonstrates that sleeping directors who ignore their duties will get little sympathy from the Court.

This case came on appeal by the liquidator after the High Court found that Mr and Mrs Lewis had not contravened sections 135 or 300 of the Companies Act for failing to maintain proper accounting records. Global Print ran up millions of dollars in debt in the short trading period of the company and was never solvent. The High Court’s sympathy stemmed from Mr and Mrs Lewis’ reliance upon the Manager of Global Print, Mr Grant, who had initially convinced Mr and Mrs Lewis to invest money in the company, and continually assured them that the company was on the verge of profitability. As the company fell into further debt, Mr Grant fabricated accounts to a factoring company and was later found guilty on criminal fraud charges.

The sympathy of the High Court Judge was not shared by the Court of Appeal. The Court reiterated that the duty under section 135 is an objective one, and the focus is not on the directors belief, but rather on the manner in which the company’s business is carried out.

The Court listed numerous factors which should have alerted Mr and Mrs Lewis to the company’s perilous financial condition, including:

  • The company's only significant contract was terminated in February 2000 after two months of trading.
  • Resignation of other directors who had day to day knowledge of the company's activities.
  • Unpaid PAYE tax from March 2000.
  • No proper Board meetings being held and very limited financial information being available to Mr and Mrs Lewis.
  • Mr and Mrs Lewis having been advised on various occasions that the company could not meet its debts.
  • The decision of Mr Grant to factor debts without the consent of Mr and Mrs Lewis in October 2000.
  • Letters of demand to Mr and Mrs Lewis from the IRD in March or April 2001 regarding a tax debt of $163,000.

Despite these factors, the company continued trading until February 2002, when a shareholders resolution appointed liquidators to the company.

Justice Hammond, delivering the Court of Appeal judgment, stated that the matter was ‘a paragon case of reckless trading under section 135 of the Companies Act 1993. The only real issue at trial should have been as to the appropriate relief to be afforded’. The Judge found that ‘for a period of 15 months (at minimum) creditors were left at the mercy of a hopelessly insolvent company, which was in any event being run by a crooked manager’.

This case sends a sound warning to sleeping directors not to abdicate their responsibilities. It will be no answer for directors to say that they relied on their manager if they have ignored clear factors evidencing the company’s financial problems.
Article by Kevin Sullivan, Senior Associate, Wellington office

Working With Voluntary Administration - Administrators Potential Liability For Legal Costs

Administrators must ensure that costs incurred in the course of an administration are reasonably and honestly incurred, or the administrator can be personally responsible for the costs.

In this article we examine the circumstances in which an administrator may be personally liable for costs incurred in the course of an administration. We also examine the ways in which an administrator can minimise his or her exposure to personal liability for costs.

There are subtle differences between an administrator (a person appointed by the company, creditors or the court) and a deed administrator (a person appointed under a deed of company arrangement usually by creditors). We will not examine the differences between those roles in any detail in this article.

Relevant provisions of the Act and Bill

Under the Insolvency Law Reform Bill administrators (not deed administrators) are entitled to be indemnified out of the company’s property for personal liability incurred in the performance their duties. Deed administrators are usually entitled to be indemnified under the deed or at law.

Despite the indemnities, the Court has a general supervisory power over both administrators and deed administrators.

Clause 239ADS of the Bill provides that the Court may make an order if it is satisfied that the administrator or the deed administrator’s management of the company’s business, property or affairs is prejudicial to the interests of some or all of the company’s creditors or shareholders.

The equivalent provision in the Australian Corporations Act 2001, section 447E, has been held to support a personal costs order against an administrator or a deed administrator. This occurred in the recent case of Grosvenor Constructions (NSW) Pty Limited (subject to a deed of company arrangement) v Hunter, where the company, Grosvenor Constructions and its administrator were ordered to pay costs on an indemnity basis.

The company commenced proceedings against certain parties and subsequently agreed to pay security for costs. The company then failed to carry out the agreement, abandoned the proceedings and also failed to explain to the Court the reasons for doing so. The Court inferred that the administrators’ conduct was unreasonable. His Honour said that section 447E supports costs orders against an administrator and proceeded to make the costs orders mentioned above.

The relevant principles in relation to administrators’ costs

The following principles have emerged from the Australian cases:

  • Costs are in the discretion of the court;
  • An administrator is entitled to be indemnified for costs properly incurred, that is, costs reasonably and honestly incurred;
  • In legal proceedings, a court has the power to make a personal cost order against an administrator (It is less likely that a cost order will be made against an administrator if the administrator is not joined as a party. However, the Court can still make an order against a non-party in exceptional circumstances);
  • The normal costs order against an administrator who is unsuccessful in legal proceedings is an order to pay the successful party’s costs, without limitation to the company’s assets (this means that the administrator will be personally liable if the company’s assets are insufficient to meet the costs award);
  • An administrator under a deed:

- usually has a contractual right to be reimbursed for costs (provided such a term is included in the deed); and

- has an equitable right to an indemnity and lien from the company’s assets, provided those costs are "properly" incurred.

Tips for administrators

The voluntary administration legislation has been operating for some 14 years in Australia and with a current average of 554 administrations in Australia per month (Australian Securities Investment Commission 2005 External Administration Statistics) there has been very few occasions where administrators have been held to be personally liable for costs.

Nevertheless, there are steps that administrators can take to minimise the likelihood of disgruntled creditors or shareholders (or the Registrar of Companies) seeking personal cost orders against them, such as:

  • Most importantly, carry out the duties with propriety;
  • Ensure that any costs incurred are proper in the circumstances. Proper means reasonably as well as honestly incurred (for example, it would be unreasonable to pursue or defend litigation which is doomed to fail);
  • The administrator should seek advice on whether it is reasonable to commence or defend legal proceedings (for example, in the absence of impropriety a deed administrator is entitled, and arguably bound to defend a challenge to a deed of company arrangement);
  • Where appropriate, ensure that proceedings are commenced in the name of the company, not the administrator’s name;
  • Ensure that any deed of company arrangement entered into by an administrator contains a contractual right to reimbursement of the administrator’s remuneration and expenses incurred as a result of the administration, including instituting or defending Court proceedings.

Article by Craig Edwards, Lawyer, Auckland office

This publication is intended as a first point of reference and should not be relied on as a substitute for professional advice. Specialist legal advice should always be sought in relation to any particular circumstances and no liability will be accepted for any losses incurred by those relying solely on this publication.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.