Selected cases

High Court of Australia · [2023] HCA 1

Metal Manufactures Pty Limited v Morton

A supplier received $190,000 from a customer shortly before the customer entered liquidation.

High Court of Australia8 Feb 2023

Plain-English explainers, not legal advice. Use the linked official source for section-level detail, and get advice for your situation.

Get legal help

Start here

Quick read

  • Being owed more money than you recently received does not neutralise an unfair-preference claim.
  • A supplier received $190,000 from a customer shortly before the customer entered liquidation.

Use this to check

  • Do not assume an outstanding account can be set off against a preference demand
  • Treat persistent arrears and unusual payment promises as insolvency warning signs
  • Document contemporaneous supply and payment arrangements

Decision snapshot

  1. What happened

    • MJ Woodman Electrical Contractors paid supplier Metal Manufactures $50,000 and $140,000 during the six months before winding up.
    • Its liquidator sought to recover the payments as unfair preferences.
    • MJ Woodman separately owed Metal Manufactures $194,727.23.
    • Because that debt exceeded the payments, the supplier argued that the two amounts should be set off, leaving nothing to repay if the payments were ultimately found to be preferences.
  2. What the court had to decide

    • Was statutory insolvency set-off under section 553C of the Corporations Act available against a liquidator's claim to recover unfair-preference payments?
  3. What the court decided

    • The High Court unanimously dismissed the supplier's appeal on the set-off issue.
    • The necessary mutuality was absent.
    • The liquidator's statutory recovery claim was not simply another pre-liquidation debt owed by the company, so the supplier could not use the company's separate debt to cancel the preference claim.

Practical impact

Practical read

  • Being owed more money than you recently received does not neutralise an unfair-preference claim.
  • Suppliers should manage credit risk before insolvency, because a payment recovered by a liquidator may have to be repaid while the supplier's underlying invoice debt remains only a claim in the liquidation.

Useful next steps

  • Do not assume an outstanding account can be set off against a preference demand
  • Treat persistent arrears and unusual payment promises as insolvency warning signs
  • Document contemporaneous supply and payment arrangements
  • Consider security and PPSR registration before distress emerges
  • Get advice before negotiating or paying a liquidator's demand

Two late payments created the dispute

MJ Woodman Electrical Contractors paid Metal Manufactures $50,000 and then $140,000 within the six-month relation-back period before winding up. A liquidator can seek orders to recover payments in that period if the statutory unfair-preference requirements are met.

At the same time, MJ Woodman still owed the supplier $194,727.23. On an ordinary ledger, it may look logical to net the amounts. If set-off applied, the larger debt would absorb the entire $190,000 recovery claim.

AmountLegal character
$190,000Payments the liquidator sought to recover
$194,727.23Separate debt MJ Woodman owed the supplier
$0What the supplier said would remain after set-off

Why ordinary netting did not work

Insolvency set-off applies to mutual credits, mutual debts or other mutual dealings between the insolvent company and a creditor. Mutuality requires the relevant rights and liabilities to be between the same parties in the same interests.

The liquidator's recovery right arose from the statutory liquidation regime. It was not a pre-existing debt owed by MJ Woodman to Metal Manufactures and did not have the required mutual character with the supplier's invoice debt. The High Court therefore agreed with the Full Federal Court that section 553C did not apply.

The commercial double hit for suppliers

A supplier may have to return a payment and then prove for the unpaid debt in the liquidation, where only a fraction may be recovered. That result can feel severe, but the preference regime is designed to stop one unsecured creditor receiving more than others shortly before insolvency.

The decision makes early credit controls more important. Once a customer is already insolvent, taking payment can reduce immediate exposure but may not produce final recovery if a liquidator later challenges it.

Key points

  • Repeated broken payment plans can indicate more than slow administration
  • Large catch-up payments close to collapse may attract review
  • New security granted late may raise separate insolvency questions
  • Personal guarantees and properly registered security can change the risk position

How to manage a distressed customer account

Start before the account becomes critical. Set credit limits, obtain guarantees or security where appropriate, register security interests correctly and enforce payment terms consistently. A supplier who continues extending unsecured credit during months of arrears is relying on the customer's solvency.

If a liquidator sends a demand, preserve invoices, statements, payment communications, supply records and evidence of any running account. Do not assume the demand is correct, but do not reject it on the basis that the company owed you more. Metal Manufactures confirms that set-off answer is unavailable.

Key points

  • Monitor overdue days and broken promises by customer
  • Pause further credit when agreed escalation points are reached
  • Keep evidence linking payments to continued supply
  • Review guarantees, retention-of-title terms and PPSR registrations
  • Respond to a liquidator within the stated timeframe after legal review

Common questions

Did the High Court decide the payments were unfair preferences?

No. The case decided the separate legal question of whether set-off would be available if the liquidator established the preference claim. Other elements and defences still had to be dealt with in the proceeding.

Does this mean a supplier loses the original debt?

The original debt may still be provable in the liquidation. The point is that it cannot be used as a dollar-for-dollar set-off against the liquidator's statutory recovery claim.

Can a supplier still defend a preference claim?

Yes. Depending on the facts, issues may include insolvency, the effect of the transaction, good-faith statutory defences and whether the payment formed part of a continuing business relationship. This case removes set-off, not every defence.

Related topics

How Sprintlaw can help