Re The Go2 People Limited (Administrators Appointed) - [2023] WASC 142

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   RE THE GO2 PEOPLE LIMITED (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED) [2023] WASC 142
CORAM:   LUNDBERG J
HEARD:   2 MAY 2023
DELIVERED          :   3 MAY 2023
FILE NO:   COR 65 of 2023
MATTER:   IN THE MATTER OF THE GO2 PEOPLE LIMITED (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED)

EX PARTE
ROBERT CONRY BRAUER as administrator of THE GO2 PEOPLE LIMITED
First Plaintiff
ROBERT MICHAEL KIRMAN as administrator of THE GO2 PEOPLE LIMITED
Second Plaintiff
ROBERT CONRY BRAUER as administrator of GO2 RECRUITMENT PTY LTD
Third Plaintiff
ROBERT MICHAEL KIRMAN as administrator of GO2 RECRUITMENT PTY LTD
Fourth Plaintiff
ROBERT CONRY BRAUER as administrator of GO2 SKILLS & TRAINING PTY LTD
Fifth Plaintiff
ROBERT MICHAEL KIRMAN as administrator of GO2 SKILLS & TRAINING PTY LTD
Sixth Plaintiff
ROBERT CONRY BRAUER as administrator of HUNTER EXECUTIVE SEARCH CONSULTANTS PTY LTD
Seventh Plaintiff
ROBERT MICHAEL KIRMAN as administrator of HUNTER EXECUTIVE SEARCH CONSULTANTS PTY LTD
Eighth Plaintiff
ROBERT CONRY BRAUER as administrator of NARA TRAINING AND ASSESSING PTY LTD
Ninth Plaintiff
ROBERT MICHAEL KIRMAN as administrator of NARA TRAINING AND ASSESSING PTY LTD
Tenth Plaintiff
ROBERT CONRY BRAUER as administrator of SKILL HIRE AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
Eleventh Plaintiff
ROBERT MICHAEL KIRMAN as administrator of SKILL HIRE AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
Twelfth Plaintiff
ROBERT CONRY BRAUER as administrator of SKILL HIRE WA PTY LTD
Thirteenth Plaintiff
ROBERT MICHAEL KIRMAN as administrator of SKILL HIRE WA PTY LTD
Fourteenth Plaintiff
ROBERT CONRY BRAUER as administrator of THE GO2 PEOPLE AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
Fifteenth Plaintiff
ROBERT MICHAEL KIRMAN as administrator of THE GO2 PEOPLE AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
Sixteenth Plaintiff

Catchwords:

Corporations - External Administration - Voluntary administrators - Urgent ex parte application - Application for appointment of voluntary administrators as receivers and managers of trust property - Application for orders to limit personal liability of voluntary administrators in relation to a Loan Facility - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), ss 420, 443A, and 447A
Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) (Cth), ss 90-15 and 90-20
Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA), s 25(9)

Result:

Application granted

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiff	:	J D Malone
Second Plaintiff	:	J D Malone
Third Plaintiff	:	J D Malone
Fourth Plaintiff	:	J D Malone
Fifth Plaintiff	:	J D Malone
Sixth Plaintiff	:	J D Malone
Seventh Plaintiff	:	J D Malone
Eighth Plaintiff	:	J D Malone
Ninth Plaintiff	:	J D Malone
Tenth Plaintiff	:	J D Malone
Eleventh Plaintiff	:	J D Malone
Twelfth Plaintiff	:	J D Malone
Thirteenth Plaintiff	:	J D Malone
Fourteenth Plaintiff	:	J D Malone
Fifteenth Plaintiff	:	J D Malone
Sixteenth Plaintiff	:	J D Malone

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff	:	Blackwall Legal LLP
Second Plaintiff	:	Blackwall Legal LLP
Third Plaintiff	:	Blackwall Legal LLP
Fourth Plaintiff	:	Blackwall Legal LLP
Fifth Plaintiff	:	Blackwall Legal LLP
Sixth Plaintiff	:	Blackwall Legal LLP
Seventh Plaintiff	:	Blackwall Legal LLP
Eighth Plaintiff	:	Blackwall Legal LLP
Ninth Plaintiff	:	Blackwall Legal LLP
Tenth Plaintiff	:	Blackwall…

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 The Go2 People Limited (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: [2023] WASC 142
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves a group of companies headed by Go2 People Limited, which operates in executive search, labour hire, and workplace training. On 1 May 2023, voluntary administrators were appointed to the group, and on the same day, they entered into a loan agreement with Intowork Australia Limited to provide funding to the companies. The administrators urgently applied for ex parte orders to appoint themselves as receivers and managers of trust property, and to limit their personal liability in relation to the loan agreement.

The court considered the application and was satisfied that the orders sought should be made. The administrators argued that without funding, the group would face substantial cash flow difficulties, potentially resulting in the termination of hundreds of employees and commercial contracts. The loan agreement was necessary to keep the businesses trading and improve the prospects of a successful restructure.

The court granted the first set of orders, appointing the administrators as receivers and managers of the trust assets of Go2 Recruitment Pty Ltd. The court found that appointing the administrators as receivers was the orthodox solution and would protect the trustee company's right of indemnity and creditors' positions. The court also granted the second set of orders, limiting the administrators' personal liability in relation to the loan agreement, as it was in the best interests of the group and its creditors.

The court scheduled a further directions hearing in July 2023 to assess whether the appointment of the administrators as receivers and managers should continue.

Orders