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
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.
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.
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…
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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2025] FCA 701
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.