Re Kettridges Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed); [No 2] - [2025] WASC 407

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   RE KETTRIDGES PTY LTD (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED); EX PARTE DOMINISH, SHAW AND ALBARRAN [No 2] [2025] WASC 407
CORAM:   HILL J
HEARD:   1 AUGUST 2025
DELIVERED          :   1 AUGUST 2025
PUBLISHED           :   26 SEPTEMBER 2025
FILE NO/S:   COR 106 of 2025
MATTER:   IN THE MATTER OF KETTRIDGES PTY LTD (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED)
EX PARTE

AARON JOSEPH DOMINISH as administrator of KETTRIDGES PTY LTD (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED)
First Plaintiff

CAMERON HUGH SHAW as administrator of KETTRIDGES PTY LTD (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED)
Second Plaintiff

RICHARD ALBARRAN as administrator of KETTRIDGES PTY LTD (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED)
Third Plaintiff

Catchwords:

Corporations - External administration - Application by administrators to extend convening period for second creditors' meeting - Whether modification in creditors' interests as a whole - Whether interests of any persons prejudiced by modification protected by terms of orders - Turns on own facts

Corporations - External administration - Application for directions that administrators are justified in treating trust property as property of the company - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 439A(6), sch 2 s 90-15, s 90-20
Supreme Court (Corporations) Rules 2004 (WA) r 2.8

Result:

Application granted in part

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiff	:	W Zheliang
Second Plaintiff	:	W Zheliang
Third Plaintiff	:	W Zheliang

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff	:	Mendelawitz Morton Commercial Lawyers
Second Plaintiff	:	Mendelawitz Morton Commercial Lawyers
Third Plaintiff	:	Mendelawitz Morton Commercial Lawyers

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Diamond Press Australia Limited [2001] NSWSC 313
Mighty River International Limited v Hughes [2018] HCA 38
Re Kettridges Pty Ltd (admin appt); Ex parte Dominish, Shaw and Albarran [2025] WASC 311
Shaw and Albarran (Joint and Several Administrators of Home Art Building Group Pty Ltd) v Home Art Building Group Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2016] WASC 274
Tucker (Administrator) v Bolten (Trustee), in the matter of Quintis Leasing Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) (No 2) [2024] FCA 46

HILL J:

(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously and has been edited from the transcript to include references, headings and to correct matters of grammar and expression.)

On 28 July 2025, the plaintiffs filed an interlocutory process seeking an extension of the convening period of the second meeting of creditors of Kettridges Pty Ltd (Company), pursuant to s 439A(6) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Act). The extension is sought for a period of 90 days, until 1 November 2025. Unless an extension is granted by the court, the meeting is required to be convened on or about 1 August 2025 with the meeting to be held on or about 8 August 2025.[1]
[1] Affidavit of Aaron Joseph Dominish filed 28 July 2025 [16].
Originally, the plaintiffs also sought orders appointing the plaintiffs as receivers of the assets of the Mark Huisman Family Trust (Trust), and directions pursuant to s 90‑15 and 90‑20 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) (IPS) (being sch 2 to the Act) that the plaintiffs are justified in treating Trust assets as assets of the Company.
The…

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 Kettridges Pty 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: [2025] WASC 407
Decision Date: 26 SEPTEMBER 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Kettridges Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed); [No 2] involved the administrators of Kettridges Pty Ltd applying to the court for various orders related to the company's external administration. The administrators sought to extend the convening period for a second creditors' meeting and directions that they are justified in treating trust property as property of the company. The dispute was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the modification of the convening period for the second creditors' meeting would result in a modification in the creditors' interests as a whole and whether the interests of any persons prejudiced by such modification were protected by the terms of the orders. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the administrators were justified in treating trust property as property of the company. These questions required a nuanced understanding of the statutory provisions governing external administration and the implications of treating trust property as company property.

The court examined the facts of the case closely to determine if the proposed modifications were in the best interests of the creditors overall. It held that the modification of the convening period was appropriate given the circumstances and that any prejudiced interests were adequately protected. Regarding the trust property, the court found that the administrators' actions were justified under the circumstances presented. The court's decision was tailored to the specific facts and circumstances of Kettridges Pty Ltd, reflecting the discretionary nature of the orders being sought.

In conclusion, the court granted the administrators' applications. It extended the convening period for the second creditors' meeting and provided the necessary directions that the administrators were justified in treating the trust property as property of the company. The orders were made on the basis of the unique facts of this case, ensuring that the interests of all relevant parties were appropriately considered.

Orders