Re Supersett Constructions Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) - [2025] WASC 278

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   RE SUPERSETT CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED); EX PARTE JEROME HALL MOHEN AND GREGORY BRUCE DUDLEY as joint and several liquidators of SUPERSETT CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED) [2025] WASC 278
CORAM:   HILL J
HEARD:   24 JUNE 2025
DELIVERED          :   24 JUNE 2025
PUBLISHED           :   10 JULY 2025
FILE NO/S:   COR 94 of 2025
MATTER:   IN THE MATTER OF RE SUPERSETT CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED)
EX PARTE

JEROME HALL MOHEN as joint and several administrator of SUPERSETT CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED) ACN 144 807 714
First Plaintiff

GREGORY BRUCE DUDLEY as joint and several administrator of SUPERSETT CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED) ACN 144 807 714
Second Plaintiff

SUPERSETT CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED) ACN 144 807 714
Third Plaintiff

Catchwords:

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

Legislation:

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 439A(6), s 447A(1)
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 67B r 5(3)

Result:

Application granted

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiff	:	Mr S Majteles
Second Plaintiff	:	Mr S Majteles
Third Plaintiff	:	Mr S Majteles

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff	:	K&L Gates
Second Plaintiff	:	K&L Gates
Third Plaintiff	:	K&L Gates

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

Diamond Press Australia Limited [2001] NSWSC 313
Mighty River International Limited v Hughes [2018] HCA 38
Re Daisytek Australia Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2003] FCA 768
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 filed on 23 June 2025, the plaintiffs seek orders pursuant to s 439A(6) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) to extend the convening period of the second creditors' meeting of Supersett Constructions Pty Ltd (Company). The extension is sought for a period of two months until 24 August 2025. Unless an extension is granted by the court, the meeting is required to be convened by 24 June 2025, with the meeting to be held by 1 July 2025.
The plaintiffs also seek an order pursuant to s 447A(1) of the Act that the second creditors' meeting may be held at any time during the extended period and the period of five business days thereafter, notwithstanding the provisions of s 439A(2) of the Act.
The originating process was listed before me this morning on an urgent basis. In support of the application, the plaintiffs relied on two affidavits (one confidential and one…

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 Supersett Constructions Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed... 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 278
Decision Date: 10 JULY 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Supersett Constructions Pty Ltd, the court was presented with an application by the administrators to extend the convening period for a second creditors' meeting. The case was heard by the Federal Court, specifically involving issues around the administration of a company under external administration. The central dispute was whether the extension of the convening period would be in the best interests of the creditors collectively, and whether any prejudiced parties would be adequately protected by the terms of the orders.

The legal issues before the court included the interpretation of the statutory provisions governing the convening of creditors' meetings during external administration, and the balancing of the interests of various stakeholders, including the creditors, the company, and any other affected parties. The court had to determine if the extension was justified under the circumstances and if any potential prejudice to specific parties could be sufficiently mitigated through the terms of the orders.

The court considered the relevant statutory provisions and the overarching objective of achieving the best outcome for creditors as a whole. It found that the extension was necessary to allow for the proper administration of the company and the protection of creditors' interests. The court determined that any potential prejudice to specific parties could be adequately addressed by the terms of the orders. Consequently, the application for an extension was granted, with specific conditions to ensure that the interests of all parties were protected.

Orders