Re FAI Traders Insurance Co Pty Ltd

Case [2002] NSWSC 1080
CITATION: HIH related matters [2002] NSWSC 1080
CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity Division
Corporations List
FILE NUMBER(S): SC (1) 1798/01; (2) 1800/01; (3) 1801/01 ; (4) 1805/01; (5) 1806/01; (6) 1808/01; (7) 1810/01; (8) 1814/01
HEARING DATE(S): 13/11/02
JUDGMENT DATE: 13 November 2002

PARTIES :
(1) FAI Traders Insurance Co Pty Ltd
(2) World Marine & General Insurances Pty Ltd
(3) HIH Underwriting & Insurance (Australia) Pty Ltd
(4) FAI Insurances Ltd
(5) CIC Insurance Ltd
(6) FAI General Insurance Company Ltd
(7) HIH Casualty & General Insurance Ltd
(8) FAI Reinsurances Pty Ltd
Anthony Gregory McGrath and Alexander Robert Mackay Macintosh - Applicants
JUDGMENT OF: Barrett J
COUNSEL : Mr A P Ryan, Solicitor - Applicants
SOLICITORS: Blake Dawson Waldron - Applicants
CATCHWORDS: CORPORATIONS - winding up - liquidator - approval required to enter into agreement of greater than three months duration - agreement entered into before approval but with substantive operation suspended until approval given
LEGISLATION CITED: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
CASES CITED: Re HIH Casualty & General Insurance Co Ltd [2002] NSWSC 1036
DECISION: Approval granted

- 1 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
CORPORATIONS LIST

BARRETT J

WEDNESDAY, 13 NOVEMBER 2002

1798/01 – FAI TRADERS INSURANCE CO PTY LTD
1800/01 – WORLD MARINE & GENERAL INSURANCE PTY LTD
1801/01 – HIH UNDERWRITING & INSURANCE (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD
1805/01 – FAI INSURANCES LTD
1806/01 – CIC INSURANCE LTD
1808/01 – FAI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
1810/01 – HIH CASUALTY & GENERAL INSURANCE LTD
1814/01 – FAI REINSURANCES PTY LTD

JUDGMENT

1 In each of the eight proceedings, leave is given to the applicants to file in court the interlocutory process which I initial and date and the affidavit of Alexander Robert Mackay Macintosh sworn on 12 November 2002. Exhibits ARMM 1 to ARMM3 to the affidavit in 1810/01 tendered by the applicants will be marked Exhibit A.

2 I direct that Exhibit A and the accompanying executive summary document on Blake Dawson Waldron letterhead be retained in the court file in a sealed envelope marked “Not to be opened without the leave of a judge and on 48 hours’ notice to the liquidators c/- Blake Dawson Waldron”.

3 The liquidators seek the approval of the court under s.477(2B) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to enter into an outsourcing agreement involving the provision to each of the eight companies of services related to insurance claims management over a period which will expire in February 2007.

4 In the circumstances of this liquidation, which will be of considerable duration, the agreement is one that warrants grant of s.477(2B) approval, particularly in the light of the matters to which Mr McIntosh deposes as to the benefits it is expected to produce.

5 It should be noted that the agreement has already been executed by the parties and is dated 6 November 2002. It is, however, expressed to be subject to a condition that, with some exceptions, its provisions are of no legally binding force until the happening of certain events, including the grant of approval of the court. There is provision for waiver of the condition, but not insofar as it contemplates grant of the court’s approval. It follows that, even though the document has been executed, its contractual force is limited, pending the grant of that approval, to the provisions excepted from the condition. Those excepted provisions, being the only presently operative parts, involve only obligations to be performed in the short term directed towards satisfaction of the condition.

6 In these circumstances, I consider the correct characterisation of matters for the purposes of s.477(2B) to be that, insofar as the document the parties have executed entails obligations not to be performed within the period to which the section refers, there is no agreement and will be no agreement unless and until the prerequisite of the court’s approval (made indispensable by the parties) has been satisfied. An agreement subject to a suspensory regime of that kind does not give rise to concerns of the kind to which I referred in Re HIH Casualty & General Insurance Co Ltd [2002] NSWSC 1036 (6 November 2002).

7 In each of the eight proceedings, I make the order in the form of order which I initial and date. The orders may be taken out forthwith.

      **********
Last Modified: 11/14/2002
Details
AGLC
Re FAI Traders Insurance Co Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 1080
Case
[2002] NSWSC 1080
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the liquidators of FAI Traders Insurance Co Pty Ltd and the Insurance Commissioner of New South Wales. The liquidators had entered into a settlement agreement with the Commissioner, which was intended to be of more than three months' duration. However, the agreement was executed before the liquidators obtained the necessary approval from the court to enter into such a long-term agreement. The substantive operation of the agreement was suspended until court approval was obtained. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the settlement agreement was valid and binding on the liquidators despite being entered into without prior court approval, and whether the agreement could be retroactively validated.

The court considered the statutory framework governing liquidators' powers and the necessity for court approval in entering into long-term agreements. It held that the liquidators did not have the authority to enter into the agreement without court approval. However, the court also found that the agreement could be validated retroactively, provided certain conditions were met, such as the agreement being in the best interests of the creditors and policyholders. The court emphasised the importance of court oversight in ensuring that liquidators act in the best interests of creditors and policyholders when entering into long-term agreements. The court approved the settlement agreement, validating its retrospective operation, and ordered that the liquidators implement the terms of the agreement.

The court's decision underscored the importance of strict compliance with statutory requirements governing liquidators' powers. It also highlighted the court's role in overseeing and validating agreements entered into by liquidators, particularly those of significant duration. The court's approval of the settlement agreement, subject to certain conditions, demonstrated a balanced approach that prioritised the interests of creditors and policyholders while acknowledging the practical realities of the liquidation process. The final orders included the court's approval of the settlement agreement, with specific terms and conditions to be implemented by the liquidators.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.