Re Brodhan Pty Ltd (in administration) - [2011] VSC 265

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL & EQUITY DIVISION

CORPRATIONS LIST

S CI 2011 3049

IN THE MATTER OF BRODHAN PTY LTD (ACN 128 360 216) (in administration)

B E T W E E N

RODNEY JAMES SLATTERY and WARREN BRIAN WHITE (as joint and several administrators of Brodhan Pty Ltd) (ACN 128 360 216) (in administration)	Plaintiffs
v
BRODHAN PTY LTD (ACN 128 360 216) (in administration)	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Gardiner AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	16 June 2011
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	17 June 2011
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Brodhan Pty Ltd (in administration)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSC 265

---

CORPORATIONS – External administration – administrators appointed under Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – application by administrators for order that company be wound up in insolvency under section 459P of the Act before adjourned second meeting of creditors of company convened pursuant to S. 439A of the Act – application dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Mr J Kohn	Hunt & Hunt

HIS HONOUR:

The plaintiffs, who are the administrators of Brodhan Pty Ltd (“the company”) make application that the company be wound up in insolvency under s 459P of the Corporations Act 2001 (“the Act”) prior to the second meeting of creditors which is scheduled to take place next week.

The application was listed as a matter of urgency on the insistence of the solicitors acting for the plaintiffs. The proceeding has not been advertised nor was the making of this application foreshadowed at the meeting of creditors conducted by the plaintiffs in the administration of the company.

On 14 February 2011, a fixed and floating charge in favour of Metcash Trading Limited and Australian Liquor Marketers Pty Ltd (“the charge”) was given by the company. The charge was registered on 23 February 2011.

On 2 May 2011, the plaintiffs were appointed as joint and several administrators of the company pursuant s 436A of the Act. The first meeting of creditors was held on 12 May 2011. The second meeting of creditors convened pursuant to s 439A of the Act was held on 6 June 2011 and adjourned to 20 June 2011, next Monday. As such, the company is presently under administration. Mr Kohn of Counsel, who appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs, indicated that the purpose of the adjournment of the creditors’ meeting to 20 June was to “enable negotiations to take place with the chargees”.

The plaintiffs say that no deed of company arrangement has been proposed and that the most likely result at the meeting is that the creditors would resolve that the company be wound up pursuant to s 439C.

The plaintiffs’ stated purpose for making the application is said to be to attract the operation of s 588FJ of the Corporations Act, which applies only to companies which are being wound up in insolvency.

Section 588FJ provides relevantly:

588 FJ (1) This section applies if:
(a) a…

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 Brodhan Pty Ltd (in administration) 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: [2011] VSC 265
Decision Date: 17 June 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Brodhan Pty Ltd (in administration) involved the administrators of the company, who applied for an order under section 459P of the Corporations Act 2001 to wind up the company in insolvency. This application was made before the second adjourned meeting of the company's creditors, convened under section 439A of the Act. The dispute centred on whether the administrators had the requisite standing to seek the winding up order and the appropriate timing for such an application.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the administrators had the necessary authority to apply for the winding up order and whether the application should be made before or after the adjourned meeting of creditors. The court had to consider the statutory provisions of the Corporations Act, including sections 439A and 459P, and interpret the intentions of the legislature in setting out the procedures for the winding up of a company.

The court found that the administrators did not have the standing to apply for the winding up order before the adjourned meeting of creditors. It was held that the meeting of creditors had the primary responsibility to decide on the winding up of the company. The court emphasised that the administrators' role was to facilitate the meeting and ensure that the creditors were properly informed and able to make an informed decision. The application was dismissed as it was deemed premature and contrary to the statutory framework established by the Act. The court's decision underscored the importance of adhering to the procedural requirements set out in the Corporations Act.

The final orders of the court were that the application by the administrators for the winding up order was dismissed, and the matter was to proceed to the adjourned meeting of creditors. The court did not grant the administrators' request to wind up the company in insolvency before the creditors had an opportunity to make their own decision. This decision reinforces the procedural safeguards in place to protect the interests of creditors and ensure a fair process in the administration of a company's insolvency.

Orders