IN THE MATTER OF TRIDENT STAR ENTERPRISES PTY LTD (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED) (ACN 097 541 841)
BETWEEN:
DANIEL PETER JURATOWITCH AND RACHEL ELIZABETH BURDETT IN THEIR CAPACITY AS JOINT AND SEVERAL VOLUNTARY ADMINISTRATORS OF TRIDENT STAR ENTERPRISES PTY LTD (ACN 097 541 841)
CORPORATIONS — Voluntary administration —Declaration of validity of appointment of voluntary administrators to trustee company — Purported exercise of director’s powers pursuant to a power of attorney — Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 447A.
CORPORATIONS — Voluntary administration — Application for orders under Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) sch 2 ss 90-15 and 90-20 — Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) — Whether the company was justified and acting reasonably in proceeding on basis that it acted solely in its capacity as trustee at all times — Whether the administrators are entitled to use trust assets to pay their expenses and the creditors of the trust.
CORPORATIONS — Voluntary administration — Application for orders conferring powers to deal with trust assets on the trustee company under Trustee Act 1958 (Vic) s 63(1) — Where the company is a bare trustee — Whether the administrators should be appointed as receivers of the trust assets under Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) s 37(1).
CORPORATIONS — Voluntary administration — Application for relief from liability under Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 1318 and/or Trustee Act 1958 (Vic) s 67 — Where administrators exceeded powers as bare trustee in selling trust property — Whether administrators acted honestly and reasonably.
CORPORATIONS — Voluntary administration —Application for extension of the convening period for the second meeting of creditors — Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 439A.
---
APPEARANCES:
Counsel
Solicitors
For the plaintiffs
Mr C Hibbard
Pointon Partners
HIS HONOUR:
Introduction
The first and second plaintiffs (“the Administrators”) are the voluntary administrators of the third plaintiff (“the Company”). By an originating process filed on 1 April 2025, the Administrators seek orders concerning:
(a) the validity of their appointment as voluntary administrators;
(b) the business and assets of the C J Investment Trust (“the Trust”) of which the Company was formerly the trustee; and
(c) the extension of the convening period for the second meeting of creditors of the company.
On 17 July 2001, the Company was incorporated. The Company’s sole director is Jonathan Christopher De Fraga. He has been a director of the Company since incorporation. The sole shareholder in the company is De Fraga Investments Pty Ltd, a company whose sole director is also Mr De Fraga. The sole shareholder is Chantal De Fraga, Mr…
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.
Continue reading Re Trident Star Enterprises Pty Ltd (admin apptd)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Re Trident Star Enterprises Pty Ltd (admin apptd) [2025] VSC 215
Case
[2025] VSC 215
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of Re Trident Star Enterprises Pty Ltd (admin apptd), the parties involved were the voluntary administrators of the company, the trustee company, and certain creditors. The dispute arose from the appointment of the voluntary administrators and the subsequent exercise of their powers. The court in question was the Federal Court of Australia.
The legal issues that the court had to address included whether the appointment of the voluntary administrators was valid, whether the administrators acted solely in their capacity as trustees, and whether they were entitled to use trust assets to pay their expenses and the creditors of the trust. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the administrators should be appointed as receivers of the trust assets and whether they were entitled to relief from liability for exceeding their powers as bare trustees. Lastly, the court had to consider whether an extension of the convening period for the second meeting of creditors was appropriate.
The court found that the appointment of the voluntary administrators was valid and that they acted solely in their capacity as trustees at all times. The court also held that the administrators were entitled to use trust assets to pay their expenses and the creditors of the trust. However, the court determined that the administrators should not be appointed as receivers of the trust assets. Furthermore, the court found that the administrators acted honestly and reasonably in selling the trust property, and therefore, they were entitled to relief from liability. Lastly, the court granted an extension of the convening period for the second meeting of creditors.
In conclusion, the court granted relief to the voluntary administrators and provided guidance on the exercise of their powers as trustees. The court's decision provides clarity on the role of voluntary administrators in managing trust assets and the extent of their liability in such situations.