"Standstill" agreement "some other reason" to set aside statutory demand

    The Supreme Court of New South Wales recently considered whether a "standstill agreement" between the parties to refrain from enforcement of a judgment debt was "some other reason" to a have a statutory demand set aside.

    The Court held that there was a seriously arguable case that the agreement remained in force at the time the statutory demand was issued. The statutory demand was set aside.

    Liquidators to have a proper basis to issue Demands

    Parker, in the matter of Worldwide Specialty Property Services Pty Ltd (in liq) v Worldwide Specialty Property Services Pty Ltd (in liq) [2017] FCA 687 recently considered a liquidator’s application to extend time to pursue voidable transactions under section 588FF Corporations Act 2001. While the liquidator ultimately obtained relief to extend time to pursue limited transactions by approximately four months, Justice Lee identified two matters of concern which caused him disquiet.

    Can Subbies in Queensland defeat unfair preference claims?

    The Subcontractors’ Charges Act 1974 (Qld) (Act) allows an unpaid subcontractor to obtain a charge over monies which would otherwise fall due to their contractor upstream by issuing a notice under the Act. The Act can be powerful and, by issuing notices, elevate the subcontractor from an ordinary unsecured creditor to, in substance, a secured creditor. The Act imposes strict deadlines upon a subcontractor to give those notices, and if they do fail to do so, they will lose the ability to claim the charge.

    Electronic signatures on guarantees = High Risk for Fraud and Dishonesty

    As electronic communications and electronic signatures become more prevalent in modern electronic commerce, there is an increased risk of fraud and dishonesty. Trade credit businesses place considerable reliance upon signatures which appear on terms and conditions of trade and, perhaps more importantly, personal guarantees. This is risky because the signature may have been forged and/or placed on the document by an unauthorised person. Conversely, it is open for an unscrupulous person to later claim that the signature was not applied by them or by someone else without their authority.

    Protecting against Forged Email

    Lawyers are heavily reliant on emails, and often assume the authenticity of emails. Unfortunately, emails can be easily forged, unless certain precautions are taken. There are (simple) technologies to prevent, or reduce, such email forgeries, including SPF records, DKIM, and DMARC records. Those records enable the recipient of an email to know how to verify if an email which claims to have come from your firm actually was authorised to come from your firm.