Re Swick Mining Services Ltd

Case [2022] WASC 79


JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   RE SWICK MINING SERVICES LTD; EX PARTE SWICK MINING SERVICES LTD [2022] WASC 79

CORAM:   HILL J

HEARD:   16 DECEMBER 2021 & 7 FEBRUARY 2022

DELIVERED          :   16 DECEMBER 2021 & 7 FEBRUARY 2022

PUBLISHED           :   8 MARCH 2022

FILE NO/S:   COR 210 of 2021

MATTER:   IN THE MATTER OF SWICK MINING SERVICES LTD

EX PARTE

SWICK MINING SERVICES LTD

Plaintiff

DDH1 LTD AND DDH1 FINCO PTY LTD

Interested Parties


Catchwords:

Corporations law – Scheme of arrangement – Application for orders convening scheme meeting under s 411(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – Whether requirements to order scheme meeting are satisfied – Orders made convening scheme meeting

Corporations - Scheme of arrangement - Application for orders approving the scheme under s 411(b) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) - Orders made approving scheme

Legislation:

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 411(1), s 411(4)(b), s 411(6), s 411(11), s 411(17), s 412(1)(a), s 1319

Supreme Court (Corporations) (WA) Rules 2004 (WA), r 3.2

Result:

Orders made convening scheme meeting
Orders made approving scheme with minor amendments

Category:    B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : A J Papamatheos & T J Langdon
Interested Parties : C D Belyea

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Perth)
Interested Parties : Clayton Utz

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

Re Amcom Telecommunications Ltd [2015] FCA 341

Re APN News & Media Ltd [2007] FCA 770; (2007) 62 ACSR 400

Re Auzex Resources Ltd [No 2] [2012] QSC 101

Re Avoca Resources Ltd [2011] FCA 208

Re CannPal Animal Therapeutics Ltd [No 2] [2021] WASC 83

Re Cassini Resources Ltd [2020] WASC 317

Re Cortona Resources Ltd [No 2] [2013] FCA 302

Re CSR Ltd [2010] FCAFC 34; (2010) 183 FCR 358

Re David Jones Ltd [No 2] [2014] FCA 720; (2014) 101 ACSR 381

Re Decimal Software Ltd [No 2] [2018] FCA 2040

Re DUET Management Company 1 Ltd [2013] NSWSC 817; (2013) 95 ACSR 34

Re Excelsior Gold [2018] FCA 2064

Re Foundation Healthcare Ltd [No 2] [2002] FCA 973; (2002) 43 ACSR 680

Re Galaxy Resources [2021] WASC 277

Re Galaxy Resources Ltd [No 2] [2021] WASC 314

Re Great Artesian Oil and Gas Ltd [No 2] [2008] FCA 1169

Re International Goldfields Ltd [2004] WASC 112

Re Investa Properties Ltd [2007] FCA 1104

Re Kangaroo Resources Ltd [2018] WASC 327

Re Macquarie Private Capital A Ltd [2008] NSWSC 323

Re NTM Gold Ltd [2021] WASC 22

Re Nusantara Resources Ltd [2021] WASC 334

Re Nzuri Copper Ltd [2019] WASC 189

Re Opes Prime Stockbroking Ltd [2009] FCA 813; (2009) 179 FCR 20

Re Pacific Energy Ltd [2019] WASC 443

Re Pensana Metals Ltd [2020] WASC 17

Re Piedmont Lithium Ltd [No 3] [2021] WASC 173

Re Rebel Sport Ltd [No 2] [2007] FCA 458

Re Saracen Mineral Holdings Ltd [No 2] [2021] WASC 32

Re Scarborough Equities Ltd [No 2] [2009] FCA 484

Re Seven Network Ltd [No 3]

Continue reading Re Swick Mining Services Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Re Swick Mining Services Ltd [2022] WASC 79
Case
[2022] WASC 79
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Swick Mining Services Limited sought orders convening a meeting of the company's members to consider a scheme of arrangement. The application was made under section 411(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and was contested by certain members of the company who objected to the proposed scheme. The nature of the dispute centred on the validity and fairness of the proposed restructuring plan, which involved significant changes to the company's capital structure and the rights of its shareholders.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the requirements for convening a scheme meeting were satisfied. The Court had to consider whether the applicant had provided sufficient information and documentation to support the meeting and whether the scheme was likely to be fair and equitable to all affected parties. Additionally, the Court had to determine if the applicant had acted in good faith and whether there were any procedural irregularities that would invalidate the proposed scheme.

The Court found that the applicant had met the necessary requirements for convening the scheme meeting. It was satisfied that the information provided was adequate and that the scheme was likely to be fair and equitable. The Court also concluded that the applicant had acted in good faith and that there were no procedural irregularities that would invalidate the scheme. Consequently, the Court made orders convening the scheme meeting and approving the scheme under section 411(b) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

Further, the Court ordered that the scheme meeting be convened on a specified date and time, and that the company provide all necessary materials to the members to enable them to make an informed decision. The orders also included provisions for the protection of dissenting members and the resolution of any disputes that might arise during the implementation of the scheme.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.