Payload Industries Pty Ltd v Melco Engineering Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed)

Link copied
Case Copied 10 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Payload Industries Pty Ltd v Melco Engineering Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2025] FCA 701

File number(s): NSD 598 of 2025
Judgment of: YOUNAN J
Date of judgment: 26 June 2025
Catchwords: CORPORATIONS – application to adjourn winding up of a company to enable a deed of company arrangement proposal to be considered at the second meeting of creditors – application granted
Legislation:

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 440A(2), 445D, 459A, 467(1)(b)

Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) 2016 (Cth) s 75-41

Cases cited:

Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Grand Platinum Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 568

Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Scuttle Clothing Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 496

Mighty River International Ltd v Hughes [2018] HCA 38; (2018) 265 CLR 480

Sino Group International Ltd v Toddler Kindy Gymbaroo Pty Ltd [2023] FCAFC 110; (2023) 268 ACSR 311

Division: General Division
Registry: New South Wales
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: Corporations and Corporate Insolvency
Number of paragraphs: 27
Date of hearing: 26 June 2025
Place: Sydney
Counsel for the Plaintiff:  ML Rose
Solicitor for the Plaintiff: Addisons
Counsel for the Defendants: A Psaltis with L Bullen
Solicitor for the Defendants:  Colin Biggers & Paisley        

ORDERS

NSD 958 of 2025

IN THE MATTER OF MELCO ENGINEERING PTY LIMITED ACN 054 118 154

BETWEEN:

PAYLOAD INDUSTRIES PTY LTD ACN 611 121 610

Plaintiff

AND:

MELCO ENGINEERING PTY LIMITED ACN 054 118 154

First Defendant

FRANCIS JUDE O'NEILL

Second Defendant

ORDER MADE BY:

YOUNAN J

DATE OF ORDER:

26 JUNE 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Pursuant to s 440A(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), the hearing of the winding up application filed 22 April 2025, be adjourned to a date after 11 July 2025.

2.There be no order as to costs. 

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


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

YOUNAN J

  1. The defendant (Melco Engineering Pty Ltd) and its administrators apply, under ss 440A(2) and 467(1)(b) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), to adjourn the application to wind up Melco brought by the plaintiff (Payload Industries Pty Ltd) on 22 April 2025.  The application is supported by three affidavits of Francis O’Neill, sworn 19 June 2025, 20 June 2025 and 26 June 2025 (the latter two were filed on 26 June 2025).  Mr O’Neill is one of the administrators appointed to the defendant. 

  2. Until around May 2024, Melco was a locally owned and operated steel fabrication and engineering business in Queensland.  Following a contract dispute with a third party, and ensuing proceedings in the Supreme Court of Queensland (Supreme Court Proceeding), Melco entered administration.  Its administrators (Francis O’Neill and David Stimpson) were appointed on 4 June 2025.  The first meeting of creditors was held on 16 June 2025.

  3. The originating process seeks to have Melco wound up pursuant to s 459A of the Corporations Act for failing to comply with a statutory demand in the sum of $185,194.27, issued to it…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Payload Industries Pty Ltd v Melco Engineering Pty Ltd (Admi... 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
[2025] FCA 701
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court, Payload Industries Pty Ltd sought to wind up Melco Engineering Pty Ltd. The winding up application was filed on 22 April 2025, following a dispute between the parties. Payload alleged that Melco had failed to meet its financial obligations, prompting the application for liquidation. Melco, in turn, proposed a deed of company arrangement as an alternative to winding up. This proposal was to be considered at the second meeting of creditors.

The legal issue before the court was whether the winding up application should be adjourned to allow for the consideration of the deed of company arrangement. The court needed to determine if adjourning the hearing would be in the interests of justice, considering the potential for the company to continue operations and satisfy creditors through the proposed arrangement. The court also needed to assess whether the adjournment would unduly prejudice Payload.

The court found that adjourning the hearing was in the interests of justice. The potential for the company to continue its operations and satisfy creditors through the proposed arrangement was deemed significant. The court noted that an adjournment would not unduly prejudice Payload, as it would still have the option to pursue the winding up application if the arrangement was not approved. The court granted the application to adjourn the hearing to a date after 11 July 2025, to allow for the consideration of the deed of company arrangement at the second meeting of creditors. There was no order as to costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Pursuant to s 440A(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), the hearing of the winding up application filed 22 April 2025, be adjourned to a date after 11 July 2025.

2. There be no order as to costs.

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.