(High Court of Australia) The rules of the clearing house scheme had been modified following the British Eagle decision so as to exclude any liability or right of action for payment between member airlines.
Held: (by a majority, Kirby J dissenting) The rule changes were effective to make the IATA the sole creditor of Ansett, and that the revised system did not have the effect of administering debts due to an insolvent company otherwise than in accordance with the mandatory pari passu rule. The court referred to Ex p Mackay and suggested that Lord Cross’ speech in British Eagle was based in part on the anti-deprivation principle; and that there was no need for recourse to the rule that a contract which is contrary to public policy is void, because the statute was an overriding one which applied according to its terms.
Judges:
Gleeson CJ
Citations:
[2008] HCA 3, (2008) 234 CLR 151, (2008) 242 ALR 47, (2008) 82 ALJR 419, (2008) 65 ACSR 1, (2008) 26 ACLC 38
Links:
Citing:
Cited – British Eagle International Airlines Ltd v Compagnie National Air France HL 1975
British Eagle, which had gone into liquidation. The parties disputed a contract attempting to reset the ranking of debts. The House was asked whether there was a debt due to the insolvent company at the commencement of its winding-up, to which the . .
Cited by:
Cited – Belmont Park Investments Pty Ltd v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd and Another SC 27-Jul-2011
Complex financial instruments insured the indebtedness of Lehman Brothers. On that company’s insolvency a claim was made. It was said that provisions in the documents offended the rule against the anti-deprivation rule. The courts below had upheld . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Commonwealth, Insolvency
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.442611
