Insolvent Trading: When a Company’s Debts Become a Director’s Personal Problem

Section 588G of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) creates one of the most significant, and most commonly triggered, personal liabilities in Australian corporate law. It makes a director personally responsible for debts the company incurs while insolvent, where the director knew or should have known the company was insolvent at the time. A business in financial difficulty that keeps trading, borrowing, and entering into obligations without taking decisive action is creating personal liability for its directors with every new debt incurred.

Every debt the company incurs while insolvent is a potential personal liability for each director.

Book a confidential strategy call

When Is a Company Actually Insolvent?

Under section 95A of the Corporations Act, a company is solvent if, and only if, it is able to pay all its debts as and when they become due and payable. Insolvency is the failure of that test — the inability to pay debts as they fall due. This is the cash flow test, and it is the primary test used in Australian courts.

What courts are not asking is whether the company has more assets than liabilities on a balance sheet. A company can be technically balance-sheet solvent but cash-flow insolvent if it cannot convert its assets into cash in time to meet current obligations. Conversely, a company with a negative net asset position may still be solvent if it has access to external funding that allows it to meet all current obligations as they fall due.

The cash flow test looks at the present and the immediate future: can the company currently pay all its debts as they fall due, and does it have a reasonable expectation of continuing to do so? Courts look at a range of indicators including dishonoured cheques and payment requests, creditors on extended terms, arrears of tax obligations, and creditor proceedings already commenced.

The Section 588G Elements

For a director to be personally liable under section 588G, four elements must be established.

• The company was insolvent at the time the debt was incurred, or became insolvent because of that debt.
• The director was a director of the company at that time.
• There were reasonable grounds to suspect the company was or would become insolvent.
• The director was aware of those grounds, or a reasonable person in a like position in a company in the company’s circumstances would have been aware of them.

The subjective/objective framing of the fourth element is important: a director who claims they did not know about the company’s financial difficulties because they did not ask or were not involved in financial management is not protected. If a reasonable person in their position, with access to the same information and attending the same board meetings, would have known, the director is deemed to have known.

What Counts as Reasonable Grounds to Suspect Insolvency?

Courts have identified a range of indicators that, individually or cumulatively, can give rise to reasonable grounds to suspect insolvency. Directors who see these indicators and do not respond are taking on significant personal risk.

• Persistent inability to pay trade creditors on time or at all.
• Outstanding cheques being dishonoured by the company’s bank.
• ATO issuing notices of unpaid withholding or superannuation obligations.
• Creditors commencing legal proceedings or threatening to do so.
• Cash flow forecasts prepared by management showing inability to meet upcoming obligations.
• Requests from the bank to reduce facilities or provide additional security.
• Advice from accountants or management that the company is in financial difficulty.

Consequences for a Director Found Liable

A director who is found to have breached section 588G can be ordered to compensate the company in liquidation for the amount of loss arising from the debts incurred while insolvent. The compensation is payable to the company and distributed to creditors through the liquidation. Where the conduct involved dishonesty, ASIC can also seek civil penalties and disqualification, and criminal prosecution under section 184 is possible.

The Critical Decision Point: When to Stop Trading

The insolvent trading duty does not mean directors must immediately wind up a company the moment it faces financial difficulty. The duty arises when there are reasonable grounds to suspect insolvency, not at the first sign of cash flow pressure. Directors have legitimate room to attempt to trade through temporary difficulties, seek additional finance, or pursue restructuring — provided they do so using the safe harbour mechanism, the defences in section 588H, or the small business restructuring pathway, rather than simply hoping the problem resolves itself.

The director who takes decisive, documented action when insolvency first becomes apparent — engaging advisers, seeking refinancing, investigating restructuring, moving to appoint an administrator if that is the right answer — is in a fundamentally different position from the director who continues trading for months in the knowledge that debts cannot be paid, deferring the inevitable while creditors accumulate losses.

Acting early, on the right advice, determines whether insolvent trading liability attaches at all.

Book a confidential strategy call
Request a strategy call

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Does insolvent trading liability apply to me even if I was not involved in the day-to-day finances?

A: Yes. The duty applies to all directors, including non-executive directors, regardless of their level of day-to-day involvement. The objective element of the test means a director is assessed against what a reasonable person in their position would have known, not against their actual subjective awareness. A director who chose not to be involved in financial matters has, in effect, chosen not to know — and that choice does not reduce their personal exposure.

Q: What is the cash flow test for insolvency?

A: The cash flow test asks whether the company can pay all of its debts as and when they fall due and payable. It looks at present and near-future ability to pay, not at a balance sheet snapshot. A company can be cash flow insolvent despite having net assets, and solvent despite having negative equity if external funding allows it to meet current obligations.

Q: Can the company’s accountant’s advice that the business was viable protect me?

A: Receiving advice that the company was viable is relevant to the reasonable reliance defence under section 588H, but it is not automatically sufficient. The advice must have been received in good faith, the accountant must have been genuinely competent and adequately informed, and the reliance must have been reasonable in context. An accountant who was not given accurate financial information, or who was providing optimistic projections rather than genuine solvency advice, provides a much weaker basis for this defence.

Q: If the company goes into voluntary administration, does that protect me from insolvent trading claims?

A: Debts incurred after the voluntary administrator is appointed are not covered by the directors’ duty — the administrator takes over management of the company’s affairs. Debts incurred before appointment may still give rise to insolvent trading liability depending on when insolvency began. Appointing an administrator early, when the company is still able to meet some obligations, reduces the period of exposure. The safe harbour provision gives a more proactive form of protection where a genuine restructuring is underway.

Q: How far back can a liquidator look when pursuing an insolvent trading claim?

A: There is no fixed look-back period for insolvent trading claims. A liquidator can pursue debts incurred during any period when the company was insolvent, going back as far as the limitation period allows. In practice, liquidators focus on the period where the evidence of insolvency is strongest and the debts are largest. Earlier periods become harder to prove as financial records become less accessible.

Q: What is the difference between insolvent trading liability and the Director Penalty Notice regime?

A: Insolvent trading liability under section 588G covers debts generally incurred while insolvent, is pursued by the liquidator, and results in compensation payable to the company. The Director Penalty Notice regime under the Taxation Administration Act is specific to unpaid PAYG withholding, superannuation guarantee charge, and GST, is pursued by the ATO directly against the director, and operates independently of any insolvency proceedings. Both can apply simultaneously to the same director.