Re Strandline Resources Ltd (Administrators Appointed) (Receivers And Managers Appointed) - [2025] WASC 127

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   RE STRANDLINE RESOURCES LTD (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED) (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) [2025] WASC 127
CORAM:   HILL J
HEARD:   19 MARCH 2025
DELIVERED          :   19 MARCH 2025
PUBLISHED           :   28 APRIL 2025
FILE NO/S:   COR 41 of 2025
MATTER:   IN THE MATTER OF STRANDLINE RESOURCES LTD (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED) (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED)
EX PARTE

THOMAS BIRCH AND JEREMY NIPPS as joint and several administrators of THE SECOND PLAINTIFF AND THIRD PLAINTIFF
First Plaintiff

STRANDLINE RESOURCES LIMITED (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED) (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED)
Second Plaintiff

COBURN RESOURCES PTY LTD (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED) (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED)
Third Plaintiff

Catchwords:

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

Legislation:

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 435A, s 439A, s 447A

Result:

Application granted

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiff	:	J Sippe
Second Plaintiff	:	J Sippe
Third Plaintiff	:	J Sippe

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff	:	Gilbert + Tobin
Second Plaintiff	:	Gilbert + Tobin
Third Plaintiff	:	Gilbert + Tobin

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

Diamond Press Australia Limited [2001] NSWSC 313
Mighty River International Limited v Hughes [2018] HCA 38
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.)

By originating process dated 14 March 2025, the plaintiffs seek orders for the extension of the convening period of the second creditors' meetings of Strandline Resources Ltd (Strandline) and Coburn Resources Pty Ltd (Coburn) (together, the Companies) until 24 July 2025. The plaintiffs also seek an order pursuant to s 447A(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) for the second creditors' meetings to be held at any time during the extended period notwithstanding the provisions of s 439A(2) of the Act.
The originating process was listed before me today on an urgent basis. In support of the application, the plaintiffs have read three affidavits: two affidavits of Thomas Donald Birch, the first‑named first plaintiff, which were filed on 14 and 18 March 2025, and an affidavit of Robert Conry Brauer, a partner of McGrathNicol and one of the receivers and managers of the Companies, which was filed on 17 March 2025.
I have also had the significant benefit of an outline of written submissions and oral submissions from counsel who appeared on the application today.

Factual background

The factual background to the application is set out in the affidavits and can be briefly summarised as follows.
On 21 February 2025, 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 Strandline Resources Ltd (Administrators Appointed) (Rece... 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 127
Decision Date: 28 APRIL 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Strandline Resources Ltd, a company in external administration, and its administrators, who sought an extension of the convening period for a second creditors' meeting. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The administrators argued that extending the convening period was in the interests of the creditors as a whole and that any potential prejudice to certain parties was adequately protected by the terms of the orders.

The court was required to determine whether the modification of the convening period was appropriate given the circumstances of the case. This involved assessing whether the extension would benefit the creditors collectively and whether any adverse effects on specific parties were sufficiently safeguarded by the court's orders. The administrators needed to demonstrate that the proposed changes were necessary and fair under the relevant provisions of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

The court found that the proposed modification of the convening period was in the interests of the creditors as a whole. It concluded that the potential prejudice to certain parties was adequately protected by the specific terms of the orders. The court acknowledged the complexity of the administration process and the need for flexibility to ensure the best possible outcomes for all stakeholders involved. The administrators' application was thus granted, and the convening period for the second creditors' meeting was extended as requested.

Orders