Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 24 JULY 2026

Dig Deeper Before You Litigate – Evidence Lessons For Liquidators

Piper Alderman
Piper Alderman
Contributor
Piper Alderman

Piper Alderman

Helping shape the future of business in Australia with practical, commercial and cutting-edge legal...

View firm profile
Explore more from Piper Alderman

A Federal Court decision examines whether liquidators can rely on accounting entries alone to pursue debt recovery, or whether suspicious book entries require stronger evidence to overcome a nil balance shown in company records. The case highlights critical evidentiary thresholds for insolvency practitioners when challenging transactions made shortly before liquidation.

AustraliaInsolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-Structuring

The facts

In Marsden, in the matter of Empire Consortium Group (in liq) v Nationwide Plant Hire [2026] FCA 911, liquidators pursued Nationwide for a substantial debt allegedly owed to Empire—despite the MYOB ledger recording a nil balance between the parties at the appointment date.

The liquidators argued that two book entries made close to the appointment date—when Empire was clearly insolvent—were not legitimate transactions. These “Zero Entries” (credits of $795,450 and $842,253.84) wiped out Nationwide’s indebtedness shortly before the appointment.

The outcome

Derrington J dismissed the claim. Despite the suspicious circumstances, the Court found there was insufficient evidence—beyond mere suspicion—that the transactions were not legitimate.

Critically, the Court held that a Jones v Dunkel inference could not be used to patch up deficiencies in the liquidators’ evidence. The voidable transaction claims were also dismissed for the same reasons. The liquidators were ordered to pay Nationwide’s costs.

Key takeaways

  • Accounting entries attract prima facie evidentiary status under s 1305 of the Corporations Act—but that presumption cuts both ways. If the ledger shows nil, you need positive evidence to displace it.
  • Suspicion is not proof. Suspicious timing and circumstances alone are not enough to establish that transactions were not genuine.
  • Jones v Dunkel cannot fill evidentiary gaps. Where a plaintiff has access to evidence (such as source documents in MYOB) but chooses not to pursue and adduce that evidence, the Court will not allow adverse inferences to compensate for that forensic decision.
  • Cost-driven forensic choices carry risk. The Court observed that the liquidators appeared to have made a forensic decision to advance a “relatively slim case”, likely influenced by cost considerations—but that choice resulted in a paucity of evidence that could not be remedied.

A salutary reminder for liquidators – dig deeper before you litigate.

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.

See more popular content from