Archive | Insolvency / managed investments schemes RSS feed for this archive

Do tenants still need mortgagee’s consent to lease in light of the Willmott decision?

December 9, 2013

0 Comments

  A few solicitors have asked whether, in light of the High Court’s decision in Willmott last week (discussed here), tenants still need to insist on the consent of their landlord’s mortgagee before taking a lease. The answer is ‘yes‘. The High Court’s decision in Willmott recognises that a landlord’s liquidator has the power to extinguish a lease.  It does not […]

Continue reading...

Willmott appeal dismissed – landlord’s Liquidators may disclaim leases

December 4, 2013

2 Comments

  The High Court today found that Liquidators of a landlord company can use the disclaimer power in the Corporations Act to extinguish leases granted by that company. A summary of the decision is available here. The decision upholds a decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal that has created significant consternation among those acting for […]

Continue reading...

Willmott appeal heard

August 13, 2013

0 Comments

Last Friday, 9 August 2013, the High Court heard an appeal against the Victorian Court of Appeal’s decision in Willmott Forests Ltd (Receivers and Managers appointed)(in liquidation) v Willmott Growers Group Inc and Willmott Action Group Inc [2012] VSCA 202. For those following the development of the case, the transcript of the hearing can be […]

Continue reading...

Disclaimer of a lease by a landlord’s liquidator – Growers granted special leave to appeal

May 11, 2013

1 Comment

The High Court yesterday granted special leave to appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision in Willmott Forests Ltd (Receivers and Managers appointed)(in liquidation) v Willmott Growers Group Inc and Willmott Action Group Inc [2012] VSCA 202. In a decision that has prompted a flurry of online discussions, the Court of Appeal held that a liquidator appointed […]

Continue reading...

Willmott special leave to appeal application filed

October 4, 2012

1 Comment

The Australian Financial Review today published an article reporting that an application for special leave to appeal the Court of Appeal’s recent decision in the Willmott case was filed last week. The Court of Appeal held that a liquidator of a land owning company can use the disclaimer power in the Corporations Act to disclaim […]

Continue reading...

More on disclaimer of a lease – part 2

September 7, 2012

0 Comments

  For those following the debate about the Court of Appeal’s decision about the disclaimer of leases in the Willmott decision, here is another summary and comment on the decision by King & Wood Mallesons.

Continue reading...

More on disclaimer of a lease

September 5, 2012

0 Comments

For those who are interested in the debate following my previous post on the Willmott decision, my friend and colleague Carrie Rome-Sievers has put an excellent summary of the case on her blog here.

Continue reading...

Disclaimer of a lease by the landlord’s liquidator – part 2

September 3, 2012

6 Comments

The Court of Appeal last week ruled that a liquidator appointed to a land owning company could use the disclaimer power in s 568 of the Corporations Act to extinguish leases granted by that company. This decision may have significant consequences for tenants and their financiers if their landlords are placed into liquidation. The case […]

Continue reading...

Disclaimer of a lease by the landlord’s liquidator does not extinguish the tenant’s property – part II

May 23, 2012

0 Comments

An earlier post on this blog noted a decision from the Supreme Court of Victoria finding that the liquidator of a landlord company could not use the disclaimer power in the Corporations Act to extinguish leases granted by the landlord company. The decision has been appealed.  The Victorian Court of Appeal heard arguments on the […]

Continue reading...

FEA special leave to appeal denied

March 13, 2012

0 Comments

The High Court dismissed the application by the Liquidators for special leave to appeal in the FEA case on Friday. The applicants sought leave firstly on the question of whether the correct test had been applied by the Full Court of the Federal Court when deciding that there was no equitable set-off and secondly on […]

Continue reading...