Legal Research
Cases
Re Hayes; Estate Property Group Ltd

Re Hayes; Estate Property Group Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 15 June 2007 9 min read

Contents

On this page

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Hayes, in the matter of Estate Property Group Limited (Administrators Appointed) [2007] FCA 935
CORPORATIONS – extension of convening period for second meeting of creditors of companies in administration
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), ss 439A, 439B, 441A, 447A
Fincorp Group Holdings Pty Limited [2007] NSWSC 363, cited
IN THE MATTER OF ESTATE PROPERTY GROUP LIMITED (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED) ACN 089 187 548 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES SET OUT IN THE SCHEDULE
JOSEPH DAVID HAYES, MURRAY CAMPBELL SMITH, SCOTT BRADLEY KERSHAW AND COLIN MCINTOSH NICOL IN THEIR CAPACITY AS VOLUNTARY ADMINISTRATORS OF ESTATE PROPERTY GROUP LIMITED (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED) AND THE COMPANIES SET OUT IN THE SCHEDULE
NSD 1079 OF 2007
IN THE MATTER OF AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL RESERVE LIMITED (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED) ACN 089 187 502
GREGORY WINFIELD HALL AND PHILIP PATRICK CARTER IN THEIR CAPACITY AS JOINT AND SEVERAL VOLUNTARY ADMINISTRATORS OF AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL RESERVE LIMITED (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED)
NSD 1085 OF 2007
GYLES J
15 JUNE 2007
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 1079 OF 2007

IN THE MATTER OF ESTATE PROPERTY GROUP LIMITED (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED) ACN 089 187 548 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES SET OUT IN THE SCHEDULE

BETWEEN:

JOSEPH DAVID HAYES, MURRAY CAMPBELL SMITH, SCOTT BRADLEY KERSHAW AND COLIN MCINTOSH NICOL IN THEIR CAPACITY AS VOLUNTARY ADMINISTRATORS OF ESTATE PROPERTY GROUP LIMITED (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED) AND THE COMPANIES SET OUT IN THE SCHEDULE
Plaintiffs

JUDGE:

GYLES J

DATE OF ORDER:

15 JUNE 2007

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS AND DIRECTS THAT:
1.With respect to each company identified in the Schedule (“Companies”) the convening period for the meeting of creditors required to be held under s 439A of the Corporations Act (“the Act”) be extended to midnight 23 July 2007.
2.Reserve for further consideration any application to further extend the convening period for the meeting of creditors required to be held under s 439A of the Act with respect to any one or more of the Companies.
3.With respect to each of the Companies, pursuant to s 447A(1) of the Act, Pt 5.3A of the Act is to operate as if:
(a)section 439A(1) also provided that the meeting of creditors required by that section may be convened and held within the convening period (including within the convening period as extended pursuant to subs 439A(6));
(b)section 439A(2) of the Act provided that the meeting must be held within five business days from being convened in accordance with subs 439A(3) and subs (4), being a date not necessarily within five business days from the end of the convening period (including the convening period as extended pursuant to subs 439A(6)); and
(c)section 439A of the Act operated generally to permit the convening and holding of the meeting of creditors of any one or more of the Companies during the convening period (including the convening period as extended pursuant to s 439A(6)) provided the requirements of subs 439A(3) and subs (4) are complied with.

4.Liberty to apply…

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 Hayes; Estate Property Group Ltd 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: [2007] FCA 935
Decision Date: 15 June 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Re Hayes; Estate Property Group Ltd, NSD 1079 of 2007, involved the application by Joseph David Hayes, Murray Campbell Smith, Scott Bradley Kershaw, and Colin McIntosh Nicol, as voluntary administrators of Estate Property Group Limited and other companies, to extend the convening period for the meeting of creditors under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). A similar application was made in the case of Australian Capital Reserve Limited, NSD 1085 of 2007, by Gregory Winfield Hall and Philip Patrick Carter, as joint and several voluntary administrators. The primary legal issue before the court was whether to grant an extension of the convening period for the creditors' meetings in these company administrations, considering the complexity and interconnectedness of the cases.

The court considered the tension between the prompt resolution of administration proceedings to minimise the impact on creditors and the need to provide adequate information to creditors for informed decision-making. Given the complexity of the administrations, involving multiple property developments at various stages, the court recognised the necessity of granting an extension to ensure creditors had sufficient information. However, the court was cautious about extending the convening period for an excessively long duration, mindful of the statutory provisions and the precedent set in similar cases. Ultimately, the court decided to grant the applications for an extension but reserved the right to further extend the period if necessary, utilising the flexibility provided under section 447A of the Corporations Act. The court also ordered that the plaintiffs inform affected creditors and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission of the orders and adjourned the proceedings for further mention.

In summary, the Federal Court granted the applications for an extension of the convening period for the creditors' meetings in the administrations of Estate Property Group Limited and Australian Capital Reserve Limited, while reserving the right to further extend the period if circumstances warranted. The court balanced the need for timely resolution with the importance of providing creditors with adequate information, ensuring flexibility in managing the complex administrations.

Orders