Lucas, in the matter of Queensland Maintenance Services Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) v Queensland Maintenance Services Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed)
[2014] FCA 1455
•17 December 2014
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Lucas, in the matter of Queensland Maintenance Services Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) v Queensland Maintenance Services Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2014] FCA 1455
Citation: Lucas, in the matter of Queensland Maintenance Services Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) v Queensland Maintenance Services Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2014] FCA 1455 Parties: PETER ANTHONY LUCAS AND GLENN MICHAEL SHANNON AS ADMINISTRATORS OF QUEENSLAND MAINTENANCE SERVICES PTY LTD ACN 104 887 103 (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED) v QUEENSLAND MAINTENANCE SERVICES PTY LTD ACN 104 887 103 (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED) File number: QUD 51 of 2012 Judge: DOWSETT J Date of judgment: 17 December 2014 Legislation: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 588FF Date of hearing: 17 December 2014 Place: Brisbane Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: No Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 4 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr C Wilson Solicitor for the Applicant: McInnes Wilson Lawyers Counsel for Frank Zullo, Zullo Family Holdings Pty Ltd, Bright Horizons Australia Childcare Pty Ltd, Bright Horizons Childcare Holdings Pty Ltd, Queensland Maintenance Services (Signs) Pty Ltd, Damlor Holdings Pty Ltd, Queensland Maintenance Services (NZ) Limited, Henry Street Investments Pty Ltd, Alkimia Property Developments Pty Ltd, QMS Property Developments Pty Ltd and Australian Maintenance Electrical Services Pty Ltd: Mr M Martin QC Solicitor for Frank Zullo, Zullo Family Holdings Pty Ltd, Bright Horizons Australia Childcare Pty Ltd, Bright Horizons Childcare Holdings Pty Ltd, Queensland Maintenance Services (Signs) Pty Ltd, Damlor Holdings Pty Ltd, Queensland Maintenance Services (NZ) Limited, Henry Street Investments Pty Ltd, Alkimia Property Developments Pty Ltd, QMS Property Developments Pty Ltd and Australian Maintenance Electrical Services Pty Ltd: Acuity Legal Pty Ltd
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
QUD 51 of 2012
IN THE MATTER OF QUEENSLAND MAINTENANCE SERVICES PTY LTD ACN 104 887 103 (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED)
BETWEEN: PETER ANTHONY LUCAS AND GLENN MICHAEL SHANNON AS ADMINISTRATORS OF QUEENSLAND MAINTENANCE SERVICES PTY LTD ACN 104 887 103 (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED)
ApplicantAND: QUEENSLAND MAINTENANCE SERVICES PTY LTD ACN 104 887 103 (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED)
Respondent
JUDGE:
DOWSETT J
DATE OF ORDER:
17 DECEMBER 2014
WHERE MADE:
BRISBANE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.the time prescribed for any application pursuant to s 588FF(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) be extended to 3 January 2016; and
2.the costs of the application be costs in the liquidation.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
QUD 51 of 2012
IN THE MATTER OF QUEENSLAND MAINTENANCE SERVICES PTY LTD ACN 104 887 103 (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED)
BETWEEN: PETER ANTHONY LUCAS AND GLENN MICHAEL SHANNON AS ADMINISTRATORS OF QUEENSLAND MAINTENANCE SERVICES PTY LTD ACN 104 887 103 (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED)
ApplicantAND: QUEENSLAND MAINTENANCE SERVICES PTY LTD ACN 104 887 103 (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED)
Respondent
JUDGE:
DOWSETT J
DATE:
17 DECEMBER 2014
PLACE:
BRISBANE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is an application pursuant to s 588FF(3)(b) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to extend the time in which a liquidator may make an application pursuant to s 588FF(1). The company was placed in voluntary liquidation on 8 August 2012 and wound up in insolvency on 18 December 2012. Previously, receivers and managers had been appointed. An administrator was in place from 30 January 2012. The relation back period commenced on 3 January 2012, so that the limitation period pursuant to s 588FF will expire on 2 January next year. The administration has been delayed by uncertainty as to the validity of a mortgage, which matter was resolved by me in a judgment delivered on 20 December last year. However the orders were not perfected until 6 February 2014.
It is not unreasonable that the liquidator should have waited until that question had been determined before proceeding. Indeed, it was probably necessary that they do so, given that the receivers and managers were presumably in possession of the assets. The liquidators have provided a detailed explanation as to the issues which they seek to investigate, although the actual breadth of the enquiry is a little difficult to discern at the moment. The liquidators have also sworn to the period of time which they will need in order to reach a decision as to whether or not to commence proceedings and to do so. Further, relevant documents are yet to be received. Those documents will have to be considered, public examinations will be conducted, and the outcome of these processes will have to be assessed. The liquidators estimate that the collection of information will take a period of up to nine months and that, thereafter, it will take another one to two months to prepare their report. In those circumstances, they seek an extension of 12 months.
The respondents are persons against whom proceedings may be commenced. Mr Martin QC submits that the period of any extension should be six months. He submits that the material discloses that the liquidators are already in possession of substantial information concerning the relevant matters, and that it is, in effect, unfair to the respondents that they should be kept in uncertainty for a period of 12 months if, in fact, the matter can be attended to more quickly. He submits that the liquidators have been, for some time, in possession of sufficient material upon which to base the relevant decisions.
It is difficult for me to second-guess the position of the liquidators. They are, or should be disinterested, in the sense that they have no particular personal interest in the matter and are, of course, officers of the Court. In the circumstances, I do not think that it is appropriate for me to second-guess them. I propose to grant an extension of 12 months. I order that the time prescribed for any application pursuant to s 588FF(1) be extended until 3 January 2016. The costs of the application are to be the costs in the winding up.
I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Dowsett. Associate:
Dated: 20 March 2015
0
0
1