Australia: Running (On Empty) Accounts: The Law Relating To Running Accounts

Last Updated: 15 May 2007
Article by Paul Marsh

The term "running account" will be familiar to most businesses which engage in the supply of goods and services. It is used to describe a situation where goods are supplied on credit and there are a series of transactions (supply of new goods or services and payments on account) between supplier and purchaser which result in the level of indebtedness to the supplier fluctuating.

A running account is of particular importance to the law of insolvency which applies to unfair preferences.

The Corporations Act has a series of provisions which allow a liquidator to treat payments made by the company to unsecured creditors in the period leading up to its being wound up as voidable. The overriding principle behind the legislative provisions is "pari passu" – unsecured creditors of a company in liquidation are to share in the assets of the company on an equal basis, proportionate to the amount of the debt owed to them.

The unfair preference provisions seek to give a liquidator the ability to give effect to this principle by recovering payments made to unsecured creditors which the law considers give an unfair preference – more to the creditor than if the creditor were to refund the payment and prove for the debt in the winding up of a company.

Initially the Common Law, and subsequently legislation, sought to limit what could be considered a harsh effect of the unfair preference provisions through the doctrine of a running account.

The High Court, in Richardson v The Commercial Banking Company of Sydney Ltd (1952) 85 CLR 110 established the running account defence. It was held that "in a case where the payment/s form an integral or inseparable part of an entire transaction its effect as a preference involves a consideration of the whole transaction". Where a running account exists between a creditor and the company in liquidation, not every payment made is considered as a preference in isolation. A single preference will exist if the overall effect of the relationship was to reduce the indebtedness of the company to the creditor in the statutory period. The statutory period, originally contained in the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act, which was adopted in the various Corporations' statutes, is 6 months prior to the relation back day (a day defined in the legislation).

The general pattern which occurs in the lead up to a company's liquidation is that its level of indebtedness with individual creditors initially increases within the 6 month period (as the company struggles to pay its debts in an attempt to survive) and then the level reduces as the creditors attempt to get paid in an attempt to bring the account back to within acceptable levels. Graphically, the relationship can be portrayed as follows:

In Rees v Bank of New South Wales (1964) 111 CLR 210, it was submitted by the creditor that the test for a single preference should be a comparison of the debt at the start of the statutory period of six months to the date of liquidation. From the graph above it can be seen that it would often result in no preference at all. It was held by Barwick CJ (at p. 136) that "the liquidator can choose any point during the statutory period in his endeavour to show that from that point on there was a preferential payment and I can see no reason why he should not choose, as he did here, the point of peak indebtedness of the account during the six months period".

In Queensland Bacon v Rees (1966) 115 CLR 266, Barwick CJ expanded on his previous statements in relation to a running account (at 286) : "implicit in the circumstances in which the payment is made is a mutual assumption by the parties that there will be a continuance of the relationship of buyer and is impossible to pause at any payment into the account and treat it as having produced an immediate effect to be considered independently of what followed."

On the strength of the above authorities, liquidators used the "high point, low point" analysis to calculate a single preference in the event of a creditor relying on a running account defence. Whether that is the correct analysis as a matter of law is not as settled as one might expect.

The High Court next considered the law applicable to running accounts in Airservices Australia v Ferrier (1996) 185 CLR 483. The case involved the collapse of Compass Airlines in 1992. In the statutory period, Airservices provided services to the value of $17.8 mn and received 9 payments from Compass totalling $10.3 mn.

The majority, Dawson Gaudron and McHugh JJ said of a running account "if the purpose of the payment is to induce the creditor to provide further goods or services as well as discharge an existing indebtedness, the payment will not be a preference unless the payment exceeds the value of the goods or services acquired. In such a case a court...looks to the ultimate effect of the transaction". This doctrine of ultimate effect was expanded upon in an economic way (at 495): "If at the end of a series of dealings, the creditor has supplied goods to a greater value than the payments made to it during that period, the general body of creditors are not disadvantaged by that transaction – they may even be better off. The supplying creditor, therefore, has received no preference.

On the basis that Airservices had supplied services whose value far exceeded, the value of the payments made by Compass, the majority held that none of the payments (excepting the last of $1.7mn) had the effect of preferring Airservices over other creditors. The liquidator failed to recover those last payments.

Because of the fact that the indebtedness of Compass increased throughout the 6 month period, it was not necessary for the Court to look at the high point low point analysis which was previously established.

What is of significance in the decision of the majority is the obiter contained throughout the majority judgement which indicates the ultimate effect of the running account is to be compared from the commencement of the 6 month period. For example, consider the following quotes from the majority judgement:

  • "At the end of the six month period, Airservices was more than $8mn worse off than it had been at the commencement of the period" (at 496)
  • "...the court does not regard the individual payments as preferences even though they were unrelated to any specific delivery of goods or services and may ultimately have had the effect of reducing the amount of indebtedness of the debtor at the beginning of the six month period. If the effect of the payments is to reduce the initial indebtedness, only the amount of the reduction will be regarded as a preferential payment."

It follows that if this is the correct interpretation of the majority reasoning, liquidators will be at risk in using a high point – low point analysis. It is unknown whether the majority considered the importance of these words in handing down its judgement. Because the issue never arose for consideration before the Court, it is submitted that the Court has not decided to overrule the decision of Barwick CJ in Rees –v- Bank of New South Wales with respect to the liquidator choosing any point (the peak indebtedness) with which to commence the single preference.

The legislation

The statutory 6 month period originally contained in the Bankruptcy Act has been decided upon by the legislature on an arbitrary basis. It can be argued that Barwick's reasoning is equally arbitrary.

All the High Court cases referred to above were decided in the light of s.122 of the Bankruptcy Act, which was adopted by incorporation to the various Corporations' Legislation.

In 1993, significant amendments were made to the Corporations Law in the area of insolvency. This was done after a 1988 ALRC report into insolvency (commonly referred to as the Harmer Report). The Harmer Report contained recommendations with respect to the avoidance provisions as follows:

129. Time Period

  • The existing 6 month time period for review of preferential transactions involving non related creditors should be retained.

131. Running Accounts

  • There should be a statutory provision which allows the court to have regard to the relationship between the parties and, if appropriate, the history of transactions between them to determine if there has been a preferential transaction or transactions.

The new statutory provision which has been in effect since 1993 provides:

588FA Unfair preferences

"(1) A transaction is an unfair preference given by a company to a creditor of the company if, and only if:

(a) the company and the creditor are parties to the transaction (even if someone else is also a party); and

(b) the transaction results in the creditor receiving from the company, in respect of an unsecured debt that the company owes to the creditor, more than the creditor would receive from the company in respect of the debt if the transaction were set aside and the creditor were to prove for the debt in a winding up of the company;

even if the transaction is entered into, is given effect to, or is required to be given effect to, because of an order of an Australian court or a direction by an agency.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a secured debt is taken to be unsecured to the extent of so much of it (if any) as is not reflected in the value of the security.

(3) Where:

(a) a transaction is, for commercial purposes, an integral part of a continuing business relationship (for example, a running account) between a company and a creditor of the company (including such a relationship to which other persons are parties); and

(b) in the course of the relationship, the level of the company's net indebtedness to the creditor is increased and reduced from time to time as the result of a series of transactions forming part of the relationship;


(c) subsection (1) applies in relation to all the transactions forming part of the relationship as if they together constituted a single transaction; and

(d) the transaction referred to in paragraph (a) may only be taken to be an unfair preference given by the company to the creditor if, because of subsection (1) as applying because of paragraph (c) of this subsection, the single transaction referred to in the last-mentioned paragraph is taken to be such an unfair preference."

The above section codifies the common law position. In the event there is a running account, all the transactions forming part of the relationship are considered together as a single transaction. Only if the single transaction gives rise to a preference will a liquidator succeed.

What it does not make clear is whether "all transactions" means all transactions throughout the six month statutory period (as appears to be contemplated by the majority in Airservices) or all transactions from the point of peak indebtedness during the period as chosen by the liquidator (per Barwick in Rees v Bank of New South Wales).

Authority subsequent to the 1993 Amendments and Airservices

While Airservices was decided in 1996, because Compass was placed into liquidation in 1991, the new legislative provisions were not applicable.

The High Court has not had to consider an unfair preference case since the new provisions came into being. Nor has it had to consider the issue of whether Airservices overrules Rees v bank of New South Wales.

In Sutherland v Liquor Administration Board (1997) 15 ACLC 875, Young J, sitting as a single judge in the NSW Supreme Court, attempted to interpret the new provision as follows:

"Although this is a very verbose section and the concatenation of words is sometimes difficult to comprehend, in a simple case it means that if a supplier and consumer are constantly trading...then one does not look at transactions in isolation but looks at the overall effect at the beginning and the end of the period. That is an inadequate summary but is perhaps generally more meaningful than the words of the subsection itself."

Young J is clearly interpreting the section as comparing balances at beginning and end of the 6 month period. Probably because he was interpreting legislation which formed no part of the decision of Airservices, he does not refer to that decision to support his beginning and end interpretation.

More recently, in Sutherland (in his capacity as liquidator of Sydney Appliances Pty Ltd (in Liq) –v- Eurolinx [2001] NSWSC 230, Santow J considered the very same issue and adopted the interpretation of Young J above except as follows:

"I would measure the preference, if any, by reference to the period of the relevant transactions constituting the running account, within the 6 month relation back period. I would do so by reference to the highest amount owing during the relation back period, not necessarily "at the beginning", compared to the amount owing on the last day, following Rees; see also Barlow 'Voidable Preference – the High Court Re-Considers' (1998) ABLR 82 at 92."

Barlow in the above mentioned article analyses the Airservices' decision in depth in relation to the running account issue. At the conclusion of all this analysis, which includes a reference to Young J's decision in Sutherland, he relies on Rees v Bank of NSW to state:

"It is not correct to compare the situation at the beginning of the relation back period with that at the end...Rather one must look at the period from the date during the relation back period when the highest amount was owed to the last day".

It is clear that is what Rees stands for. It is equally clear that the majority in Airservices was referring to a beginning and end test to ascertain the ultimate effect. What is not clear is whether the majority did this intentionally with a view to create an inconsistency with Rees.


There is an undeniable tension between the reasoning in Airservices and the established high point low point analysis. The doctrine of ultimate effect, as expounded in Airservices, does not accord with the commencement of the period being the highest point of indebtedness.

Notwithstanding this, it is submitted that the correct state of the law is that Rees must prevail as it is part of the ratio of that case, wheras the matter was not specifically considered and overruled by the majority in Airservices.

While liquidators can continue to enjoy the arbitrary selection of the commencement of the single transaction, it remains to be seen how long their ability to do so will exist. With the differing decisions in lower jurisdictions (Supreme Courts) the issue may not be put finally to rest until an appropriate case comes before the High Court.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

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)
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.