Re Elmore Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (Administrators Appointed) - [2024] WASC 76

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   RE ELMORE LTD (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED); EX PARTE ELMORE LTD (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED) [2024] WASC 76
CORAM:   HILL J
HEARD:   5 MARCH 2024
DELIVERED          :   5 MARCH 2024
PUBLISHED           :   19 MARCH 2024
FILE NO/S:   COR 26 of 2024
MATTER:   IN THE MATTER OF ELMORE LTD (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED)
EX PARTE

ELMORE LTD (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED)
First Plaintiff

MARTIN BRUCE JONES as administrator of ELMORE LTD (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED)
Second Plaintiff

CLINT PETER JOSEPH as administrator of ELMORE LTD (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED)
Third Plaintiff

MATTHEW DAVID WOODS as administrator of ELMORE LTD (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED)
Fourth Plaintiff

PEKO IRON PROJECT PTY LTD (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED)
Fifth Plaintiff

MARTIN BRUCE JONES as administrator of PEKO IRON PROJECT PTY LTD (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED)
Sixth Plaintiff

CLINT PETER JOSEPH as administrator of PEKO IRON PROJECT PTY LTD (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED)
Seventh Plaintiff

MATTHEW DAVID WOODS as administrator of PEKO IRON PROJECT PTY LTD (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED)
Eighth Plaintiff

PEKO GOLD LENDING PTY LTD (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED)
Ninth Plaintiff

MARTIN BRUCE JONES as administrator of PEKO GOLD LENDING PTY LTD (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED)
Tenth Plaintiff

CLINT PETER JOSEPH as administrator of PEKO GOLD LENDING PTY LTD (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED)
Eleventh Plaintiff

MATTHEW DAVID WOODS as administrator of PEKO GOLD LENDING PTY LTD (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED)
Twelfth Plaintiff

SITZLER SAVAGE PTY LTD (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED)
Thirteenth Plaintiff

MARTIN BRUCE JONES as administrator of SITZLER SAVAGE PTY LTD (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED)
Fourteenth Plaintiff

CLINT PETER JOSEPH as administrator of SITZLER SAVAGE PTY LTD (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED)
Fifteenth Plaintiff

MATTHEW DAVID WOODS as administrator of SITZLER SAVAGE PTY LTD (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED)
Sixteenth Plaintiff

ICA MINING PTY LTD (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED)
Seventeenth Plaintiff

MARTIN BRUCE JONES as administrator of ICA MINING PTY LTD (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED)
Eighteenth Plaintiff

CLINT PETER JOSEPH as administrator of ICA MINING PTY LTD (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED)
Nineteenth Plaintiff

MATTHEW DAVID WOODS as administrator of ICA MINING PTY LTD (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED)
Twentieth Plaintiff

PEKO BULL PTY LTD (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED)
Twenty First Plaintiff

MARTIN BRUCE JONES as administrator of PEKO BULL PTY LTD (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED)
Twenty Second Plaintiff

CLINT PETER JOSEPH as administrator of PEKO BULL PTY LTD (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED)
Twenty Third Plaintiff

MATTHEW DAVID WOODS as administrator of PEKO BULL PTY LTD (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED)
Twenty Fourth Plaintiff

PEKO REHABILITATION PROJECT PTY LTD (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED)
Twenty Fifth Plaintiff

MARTIN BRUCE JONES as administrator of PEKO REHABILITATION PROJECT PTY LTD (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (ADMINISTRATORS…

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 Elmore Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (Administra... 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: [2024] WASC 76
Decision Date: 19 MARCH 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Elmore Ltd, a company that was placed into external administration, and the administrators who were appointed to manage the administration process. The dispute arose when the administrators sought to extend the convening period for a second creditors’ meeting beyond the standard period set out in the Corporations Act. The Federal Court was asked to decide whether this extension was appropriate.

The central legal issue before the court was whether modifying the convening period for the second creditors’ meeting would be in the interests of the creditors as a whole. The court had to assess whether any potential prejudice to certain creditors was adequately safeguarded by the terms of the orders. The administrators argued that the extension was necessary to allow for a more comprehensive meeting that could better facilitate the creditors' decision-making process.

The court found that the interests of the creditors as a whole would indeed be served by the extension, as it would allow for a more informed and inclusive meeting. The court also determined that the terms of the orders sufficiently protected any creditors who might be prejudiced by the extension. The administrators' application to extend the convening period was therefore granted, with the court's decision resting on the specific facts of the case, including the nature of the creditors' interests and the terms of the proposed orders.

The final orders included an extension of the convening period for the second creditors’ meeting, subject to the conditions outlined in the court's decision. This decision emphasised the need for a balanced approach in insolvency matters, ensuring that the rights and interests of all creditors are considered in the administration process.

Orders