Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 04 SEPTEMBER 2020

Latest case law challenges third-party payments position in a liquidation scenario

The decision casts doubt on what was a relatively settled position: a third-party payment could be a preference payment.

AustraliaInsolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-Structuring

Has a preference payment loophole emerged?

In early August, the Victorian Court of Appeal handed down its decision in Cant v Mad Brothers Earthmoving Pty Ltd [2020] VSCA 198. The decision casts doubt on what was a relatively settled position: that a third-party payment could indeed constitute a preference payment.

In brief, the background to the matter is as follows:

  • Elaina Construction and Developing Group Pty Ltd ("Elaina") owed a debt to Mad Brothers Earthmoving Pty Ltd ("Mad Brothers").
  • Payment of the debt was made but not by Elaina, rather by a related entity by way common director, Rock Investments Pty Ltd ("Rock").
  • Elaina was later placed into liquidation. With the payment to Mad Brothers having been made within the relevant six-month relation-back period, the liquidator sought to recover the payment as a preference.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

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