Hopkins v AECOM Australia Pty Ltd - [2012] FCA 1204

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Hopkins v AECOM Australia Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 1204

Citation: Hopkins v AECOM Australia Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 1204

Parties: STEPHEN HOPKINS AS TRUSTEE FOR THE HOPKINS SUPERANNUATION FUND and KIM DENISE HOPKINS AS TRUSTEE FOR THE HOPKINS SUPERANNUATION FUND v AECOM AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 093 846 925) (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MAUNSELL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD and RIVERCITY MOTORWAY MANAGEMENT LIMITED (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED) (ACN 117 343 361) and RIVERCITY MOTORWAY SERVICES PTY LIMITED (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED) (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (ACN 117 139 992)

`

File number: NSD 757 of 2012

Judge: NICHOLAS J

Catchwords: CORPORATIONS – where company in voluntary administration – whether leave to proceed should be given under s 440D of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – where leave to proceed neither consented to nor opposed by administrators – where administration likely to be complex and lengthy – where claims against company part of wider controversy raising common issues and involving numerous related entities – relevance of insurance – lack of insurance relevant but not decisive – conditions upon which leave to proceed should be granted – power of Court to avoid or ameliorate any hardship or inconvenience by case management or imposition of further conditions – leave to proceed granted on condition that any judgment obtained not to be enforced without leave

Date of judgment: 1 August 2012

Legislation: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s440D
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) Part IVA

Cases cited: Foxcroft v The Ink Group Pty Ltd (1994) 15 ACSR 203
Brian Rochford Ltd (admin apptd) v Textile Clothing & Footwear Union of NSW (1998) 47 NSWLR 47
Arpic Pty Ltd v Austin Australia Pty Ltd (2004) 49 ACSR 71
Attard v James Legal Pty Ltd [2010] NSWCA 311
Larkden Pty Ltd v Lloyd Energy Systems Pty Ltd (2011) 285 ALR 207

Date of hearing: 1 August 2012

Date of orders: 1 August 2012

Date of publication of reasons: 2 November 2012

Place: Sydney

Division: GENERAL DIVISION

Category: Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 29

Counsel for the Applicants: Mr S M Nixon

Solicitor for the Applicants: Maurice Blackburn Lawyers

Counsel for the First Respondent: The First Respondent did not appear at the interlocutory hearing

Solicitor for the Second Respondent King & Wood Mallesons

Solicitor for the Third Respondent Gilbert + Tobin

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 757 of 2012

BETWEEN:
STEPHEN HOPKINS AS TRUSTEE FOR THE HOPKINS SUPERANNUATION FUND
First Applicant

KIM DENISE HOPKINS AS TRUSTEE FOR THE HOPKINS SUPERANNUATION FUND
Second Applicant

AND:
AECOM AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 093 846 925) (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MAUNSELL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD)
First Respondent

RIVERCITY MOTORWAY MANAGEMENT LIMITED (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED) (ACN 117 343 361)
Second Respondent

RIVERCITY MOTORWAY SERVICES PTY LIMITED (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED) (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (ACN 117 139 992)
Third Respondent

JUDGE:

NICHOLAS J

DATE OF ORDER:

1 AUGUST 2012

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The applicants are granted leave under s440D of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to:

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Hopkins v AECOM Australia Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2012] FCA 1204
Decision Date: 1 August 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hopkins v AECOM Australia Pty Ltd was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The applicants sought leave to proceed with legal action against RiverCity Motorway Management Limited and RiverCity Motorway Services Pty Limited, both of which were in voluntary administration. The central issue before the court was whether the applicants should be granted leave to prosecute their claims against the administered companies under section 440D of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The court needed to consider the implications of the administration being both complex and lengthy, as well as the broader context of the claims involving numerous related entities and common issues.

The court determined that while the lack of insurance coverage was a relevant factor, it was not the sole determinant in granting leave to proceed. The court considered the potential for hardship and inconvenience to the applicants if the leave was not granted, as well as the power to impose conditions that could manage or mitigate any negative effects of the proceedings. The court recognised the importance of the applicants' claims being part of a larger controversy and the need to resolve these matters efficiently. It was also noted that the administrators neither consented to nor opposed the applicants' request for leave to proceed.

In granting the leave, the court imposed a condition that any judgment obtained by the applicants could not be enforced without the court's leave. This decision aimed to balance the interests of the applicants and the administered companies, while also taking into account the broader legal and financial landscape of the case. The court reserved costs of the interlocutory application, indicating that further consideration would be given at a later stage.

The final orders of the court were that the applicants were granted leave to commence and prosecute proceedings against the administered companies under specific conditions, including the form of the amended originating application and statement of claim. Additionally, the applicants were restrained from enforcing any judgment without the court's leave, and costs of the interlocutory application were reserved for future determination.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applicants are granted leave under s440D of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to:

(a) commence and prosecute proceedings against RiverCity Motorway Management Limited (Administrators appointed) ACN 117 343 361 (RiverCity Management) and RiverCity Motorway Services Pty Limited (Administrators appointed) (Receivers and Managers appointed) ACN 117 139 992 (RiverCity Services) by joining them to the proceeding.

(b) file and serve an amended originating application and amended statement of claim, such amended originating application to be in the form annexed to the affidavit of Richard Ryan, affirmed 23 July 2011, and such amended statement of claim to be in the form of the document marked MFI-1.

2. The applicants are not to take any steps to enforce any judgment that may be obtained in their proceeding against RiverCity Management or RiverCity Services without the leave of the Court.

3. Costs of the interlocutory application are reserved.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011

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.

Citation:	Hopkins v AECOM Australia Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 1204
Parties:	STEPHEN HOPKINS AS TRUSTEE FOR THE HOPKINS SUPERANNUATION FUND and KIM DENISE HOPKINS AS TRUSTEE FOR THE HOPKINS SUPERANNUATION FUND v AECOM AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 093 846 925) (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MAUNSELL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD and RIVERCITY MOTORWAY MANAGEMENT LIMITED (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED) (ACN 117 343 361) and RIVERCITY MOTORWAY SERVICES PTY LIMITED (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED) (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (ACN 117 139 992)
`
File number:	NSD 757 of 2012
Judge:	NICHOLAS J
Catchwords:	CORPORATIONS – where company in voluntary administration – whether leave to proceed should be given under s 440D of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – where leave to proceed neither consented to nor opposed by administrators – where administration likely to be complex and lengthy – where claims against company part of wider controversy raising common issues and involving numerous related entities – relevance of insurance – lack of insurance relevant but not decisive – conditions upon which leave to proceed should be granted – power of Court to avoid or ameliorate any hardship or inconvenience by case management or imposition of further conditions – leave to proceed granted on condition that any judgment obtained not to be enforced without leave
Date of judgment:	1 August 2012
Legislation:	Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s440D Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) Part IVA
Cases cited:	Foxcroft v The Ink Group Pty Ltd (1994) 15 ACSR 203 Brian Rochford Ltd (admin apptd) v Textile Clothing & Footwear Union of NSW (1998) 47 NSWLR 47 Arpic Pty Ltd v Austin Australia Pty Ltd (2004) 49 ACSR 71 Attard v James Legal Pty Ltd [2010] NSWCA 311 Larkden Pty Ltd v Lloyd Energy Systems Pty Ltd (2011) 285 ALR 207
Date of hearing:	1 August 2012
Date of orders:	1 August 2012
Date of publication of reasons:	2 November 2012
Place:	Sydney
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	29
Counsel for the Applicants:	Mr S M Nixon
Solicitor for the Applicants:	Maurice Blackburn Lawyers
Counsel for the First Respondent:	The First Respondent did not appear at the interlocutory hearing
Solicitor for the Second Respondent	King & Wood Mallesons
Solicitor for the Third Respondent	Gilbert + Tobin

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	NSD 757 of 2012

JUDGE:	NICHOLAS J
DATE OF ORDER:	1 AUGUST 2012
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY