Re Aerison Group Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [No 2] - [2023] WASC 275

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   RE AERISON GROUP LTD (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED) [No 2] [2023] WASC 275
CORAM:   STRK J
HEARD:   30 JUNE 2023
DELIVERED          :   30 JUNE 2023
PUBLISHED           :   26 JULY 2023
FILE NO/S:   COR 92 of 2023
MATTER:   IN THE MATTER OF RE AERISON GROUP LTD (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED) & ORS

EX PARTE
RICHARD SCOTT TUCKER, CRAIG PETER SHEPARD AND JOHN ALLAN BUMBAK IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS JOINT AND SEVERAL ADMINISTRATORS OF AERISON GROUP LTD (ACN 614 735 474) (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED), AERISON PTY LTD (ACN 060 786 656) (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED), AERISON ENERGY SERVICES PTY LTD (ACN 665 237 392) (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED), AERISON EPC PTY LTD (ACN 640 499 387) (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED), AERISON HOLDINGS PTY LTD (ACN 149 198 176) (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED), AERISON MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY PTY LTD (ACN 620 639 974) (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED) AND AERISON SERVICES PTY LTD (ACN 617 466 529) (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED)
First Plaintiffs
AERISON GROUP LTD (ACN 614 735 474) (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED)
Second Plaintiff
AERISON PTY LTD (ACN 060 786 656) (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED)
Third Plaintiff
AERISON ENERGY SERVICES PTY LTD (ACN 665 237 392) (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED)
Fourth Plaintiff
AERISON EPC PTY LTD (ACN 640 499 387) (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED)
Fifth Plaintiff
AERISON HOLDINGS PTY LTD (ACN 149 198 176) (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED)
Sixth Plaintiff
AERISON MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY PTY LTD (ACN 620 639 974) (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED)
Seventh Plaintiff
AERISON SERVICES PTY LTD (ACN 617 466 529) (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED)
Eighth Plaintiff

Catchwords:

Corporations law - Application to extend convening period - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 439A(6), s 447A

Result:

Application granted

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiffs	:	M Ferreira
Second Plaintiff	:	M Ferreira
Third Plaintiff	:	M Ferreira
Fourth Plaintiff	:	M Ferreira
Fifth Plaintiff	:	M Ferreira
Sixth Plaintiff	:	M Ferreira
Seventh Plaintiff	:	M Ferreira
Eighth Plaintiff	:	M Ferreira

Solicitors:

First Plaintiffs	:	Clayton Utz
Second Plaintiff	:	Clayton Utz
Third Plaintiff	:	Clayton Utz
Fourth Plaintiff	:	Clayton Utz
Fifth Plaintiff	:	Clayton Utz
Sixth Plaintiff	:	Clayton Utz
Seventh Plaintiff	:	Clayton Utz
Eighth Plaintiff	:	Clayton Utz

Cases referred to in decision:

Cameron Shaw and Richard Albarran in their Capacity as Joint and Several Administrators of Home Art Building Group Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) v Home Art Building Group Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2016] WASC 274
Flynn v Theobold [2008] WASC 263
In the matter of Daisytek Australia Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 575
Mighty River International Ltd v Hughes [2017] WASCA 152; (2017) 52 WAR 1
Re Aerison Group Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2023] WASC 274
Re Reid Group Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed); Ex parte Kirman & Bauer [2017] WASC 219
Re Riviera Group Pty Ltd (Admins Apptd) (Recs and Mgs Apptd) [2009] NSWSC 585; (2009) 72 ACSR 352
Re Windimurra Vanadium Ltd & Midwest Vanadium Pty Ltd [2009] WASC 71

Table of Contents

Introduction

Evidence

Background and context in which the third application is made

Work undertaken and to be completed

Sale process

Report preparation

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 Re Aerison Group Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [No 2] 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: [2023] WASC 275
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Western Australia was asked to decide on an application by the joint and several administrators of Aerison Group Ltd and its associated entities, seeking to extend the convening period for the second meeting of creditors of the Group Companies. The application was made pursuant to s 439A(6) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and sought to extend the convening period for the second meeting of creditors from 4 July 2023 to 29 August 2023. The court was required to consider the need for the extension, the potential impact on creditors and other stakeholders, and the balance between the expeditious resolution of the administration and the need for a thorough and informed decision-making process. The administrators argued that the extension was necessary to complete a rigorous and effective sales campaign, negotiate terms with existing principals and subcontractors, update creditors and interested parties, and properly discharge their obligations. The court found that the reasons for the extension were valid and that the extension was necessary to enable the administrators to properly discharge their obligations and maximize the return for creditors. The court also considered the potential detriment to third parties, including secured creditors, and found that the benefits to creditors outweighed any potential prejudice. The court granted the application and extended the convening period as sought by the administrators.

Orders