In the matter of OneSteel Manufacturing Pty Ltd (administrators appointed)

The case before the court involved OneSteel Manufacturing Pty Ltd, which had administrators appointed, and related to issues concerning the registration and effectiveness of security interests under the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth). The court was required to determine the validity of registrations that omitted the grantor’s Australian Company Number (ACN) but included the Australian Business Number (ABN), and whether certain provisions of the Personal Property Securities Act aligned with constitutional requirements for compulsory acquisition of property.

The primary legal issue was whether the defect in the registrations, which did not include the grantor's ACN, rendered them ineffective. The court concluded that the defect was such that a search of the Personal Property Securities register by reference to the ACN alone would not reveal the registrations. This defect was considered seriously misleading because it would prevent searchers using one of the authorised modes of search from discovering the registration. As a result, the registrations were deemed ineffective. Another issue was whether certain provisions of the Personal Property Securities Act were valid under the Constitution, specifically whether they constituted an acquisition of property for a purpose within the Commonwealth's legislative power. The court found that the provisions did not effect an acquisition of property within the meaning of the Constitution, and therefore did not require compliance with the compulsory acquisition provisions.

The court also examined whether relief under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) could be granted to fix a later time for the registration of an unperfected security interest, and whether such relief could reverse the vesting of an unperfected security interest under the Personal Property Securities Act. The court held that relief under the Corporations Act would not be available because the security interest was unperfected at the critical time. Additionally, even if relief could be given, it would not divest an unperfected security interest that had already vested under the Personal Property Securities Act. Finally, the court considered whether an extension of the period for registration under the Personal Property Securities Act could divest a vested unperfected security interest, and concluded that it could not.

The court's final orders were that the defective registrations were ineffective, that the provisions of the Personal Property Securities Act were not subject to constitutional constraints on compulsory acquisition of property, and that relief under the Corporations Act and extensions of registration periods could not affect the vested status of unperfected security interests.