Where an insolvent company uses funds borrowed from a related entity to pay a creditor, the payment is properly characterised as a bipartite transaction between the debtor and creditor for the purposes of s 588FA, and the interposition of the related entity does not defeat an unfair preference claim. A creditor's subsequent reallocation of payments to a higher-priority account does not alter the unfair preference analysis because the comparison under s 588FA(1)(b) is made by reference to the actual winding up.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 21 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 21 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.