Re Yeeda Pastoral Company Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) (ACN 094 819 717); [No 4]

[2025] WASC 413

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   RE YEEDA PASTORAL COMPANY PTY LTD (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED) (ACN 094 819 717); EX PARTE RICHARD SCOTT TUCKER as joint and several administrator of YEEDA PASTORAL COMPANY PTY LTD (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED) (ACN 094 819 717) [No 4] [2025] WASC 413

CORAM:   HILL J

HEARD:   30 JULY 2025

DELIVERED          :   30 JULY 2025

PUBLISHED           :   26 SEPTEMBER 2025

FILE NO/S:   COR 49 of 2024

MATTER:   IN THE MATTER OF YEEDA PASTORAL COMPANY PTY LTD (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED) (ACN 094 819 717)

EX PARTE

RICHARD SCOTT TUCKER as joint and several administrator of YEEDA PASTORAL COMPANY PTY LTD (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED) (ACN 094 819 717)

First named First Plaintiff

ANTHONY JAY EDWARD MISKIEWICZ as joint and several administrator of YEEDA PASTORAL COMPANY PTY LTD (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED) (ACN 094 819 717)

Second named First Plaintiff

DAVID CHRISTOPHER OSBORNE as joint and several administrator of YEEDA PASTORAL COMPANY PTY LTD (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED) (ACN 094 819 717)

Third named First Plaintiff

RICHARD SCOTT TUCKER as joint and several administrator of AUSTRALIAN RANGELAND MEAT PTY LTD (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED) (ACN 156 047 111)

First named Second Plaintiff

ANTHONY JAY EDWARD MISKIEWICZ as joint and several administrator of AUSTRALIAN RANGELAND MEAT PTY LTD (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED) (ACN 156 047 111)

Second named Second Plaintiff

DAVID CHRISTOPHER OSBORNE as joint and several administrator of AUSTRALIAN RANGELAND MEAT PTY LTD (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED) (ACN 156 047 111)

Third named Second Plaintiff

RICHARD SCOTT TUCKER as joint and several administrator of KIMBERLEY PROPERTIES PTY LTD (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED) (ACN 658 990 160)

First named Third Plaintiff

ANTHONY JAY EDWARD MISKIEWICZ as joint and several administrator of KIMBERLEY PROPERTIES PTY LTD (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED) (ACN 658 990 160)

Second named Third Plaintiff

DAVID CHRISTOPHER OSBORNE as joint and several administrator of KIMBERLEY PROPERTIES PTY LTD (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED) (ACN 658 990 160)

Third named Third Plaintiff

RICHARD SCOTT TUCKER as joint and several administrator of KIMBERLEY MEAT COMPANY PTY LTD (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED) (ACN 159 933 392)

First named Fourth Plaintiff

ANTHONY JAY EDWARD MISKIEWICZ as joint and several administrator of KIMBERLEY MEAT COMPANY PTY LTD (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED) (ACN 159 933 392)

Second named Fourth Plaintiff

DAVID CHRISTOPHER OSBORNE as joint and several administrator of KIMBERLEY MEAT COMPANY PTY LTD (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED) (ACN 159 933 392)

Third named Fourth Plaintiff

RICHARD SCOTT TUCKER as joint and several administrator of YEEDA KIMBERLEY TOURS PTY LTD (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED) (ACN 126 760 281)

First named Fifth Plaintiff

ANTHONY JAY EDWARD MISKIEWICZ as joint and several administrator of YEEDA KIMBERLEY TOURS PTY LTD (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED) (ACN 126 760 281)

Second named Fifth Plaintiff

DAVID CHRISTOPHER OSBORNE as joint and several administrator of YEEDA KIMBERLEY TOURS PTY LTD (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED) (ACN 126 760 281)

Third named Fifth Plaintiff

RICHARD SCOTT TUCKER as joint and several administrator of YEEDA FODDER COMPANY PTY LTD (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED) (ACN 660 216 777)

First named Sixth Plaintiff

ANTHONY JAY EDWARD MISKIEWICZ as joint and several administrator of YEEDA FODDER COMPANY PTY LTD (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED) (ACN 660 216 777)

Second named Sixth Plaintiff

DAVID CHRISTOPHER OSBORNE as joint and several administrator of YEEDA FODDER COMPANY PTY LTD (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED) (ACN 660 216 777)

Third named Sixth Plaintiff

Catchwords:

Corporations - External administration - Application to vary terms of deeds of company arrangements - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 445A, s 447A

Result:

Application granted

Category:    B

Representation:

Counsel:

First named First Plaintiff	:	J Abberton
Second named First Plaintiff	:	J Abberton
Third named First Plaintiff	:	J Abberton
First named Second Plaintiff	:	J Abberton
Second named Second Plaintiff	:	J Abberton
Third named Second Plaintiff	:	J Abberton
First named Third Plaintiff	:	J Abberton
Second named Third Plaintiff	:	J Abberton
Third named Third Plaintiff	:	J Abberton
First named Fourth Plaintiff	:	J Abberton
Second named Fourth Plaintiff	:	J Abberton
Third named Fourth Plaintiff	:	J Abberton
First named Fifth Plaintiff	:	J Abberton
Second named Fifth Plaintiff	:	J Abberton
Third named Fifth Plaintiff	:	J Abberton
First named Sixth Plaintiff	:	J Abberton
Second named Sixth Plaintiff	:	J Abberton
Third named Sixth Plaintiff	:	J Abberton

Solicitors:

First named First Plaintiff	:	Lavan
Second named First Plaintiff	:	Lavan
Third named First Plaintiff	:	Lavan
First named Second Plaintiff	:	Lavan
Second named Second Plaintiff	:	Lavan
Third named Second Plaintiff	:	Lavan
First named Third Plaintiff	:	Lavan
Second named Third Plaintiff	:	Lavan
Third named Third Plaintiff	:	Lavan
First named Fourth Plaintiff	:	Lavan
Second named Fourth Plaintiff	:	Lavan
Third named Fourth Plaintiff	:	Lavan
First named Fifth Plaintiff	:	Lavan
Second named Fifth Plaintiff	:	Lavan
Third named Fifth Plaintiff	:	Lavan
First named Sixth Plaintiff	:	Lavan
Second named Sixth Plaintiff	:	Lavan
Third named Sixth Plaintiff	:	Lavan

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

Re Alita Resources Ltd; Ex parte Tucker [2020] WASC 430

Re Paradox Digital Ltd [2001] WASC 182

Re Yeeda Pastoral Company Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed); Ex parte Tucker [2024] WASC 120

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.)

1. On 29 July 2025, the plaintiffs filed a further interlocutory application seeking orders, pursuant to s 447A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act), to modify the operation of s 445A of the Act to enable the court to make orders to vary each of the deed of company arrangements (DOCAs) for the companies in the Yeeda Group to enable the variation of the completion date until 15 September 2025.

2. In support of the application, the plaintiffs relied on two affidavits: an affidavit of one of the deed administrators, David Christopher Osborne, filed 29 July 2025; and an affidavit of Jackson Peter Flematti, a solicitor employed by the solicitors for the plaintiffs, filed 30 July 2025.

Factual background

1. The reason for the proposed amendment is to address the possibility of an application for special leave to appeal being filed by any party against the orders of the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeal from my decision in respect of the s 444GA application in COR 167 of 2024.

2. The Court of Appeal made orders on the afternoon of 28 July 2025 dismissing the appeal but have not yet published reasons for their decision. The deed proponent (TLP4) seeks an extension of time to the completion date to the DOCAs to enable it to consider the reasons of the Court of Appeal, and to allow the necessary time period for any application for special leave to be filed to lapse. In this regard, I note that the solicitors for Fitzroy River Ltd Liability Company have expressly reserved their rights in this regard, pending delivery of the Court of Appeal's reasons for decision.[1]

   [1] Affidavit of George Paul Pasas filed 30 July 2025, 'DCO-1'.

3. Given the timing of the Court of Appeal's orders, there is now insufficient time for the deed administrators to convene a meeting of creditors (which requires 10 business days' notice) to consider the proposed variation. Notice of this application was given to creditors yesterday, and I note that no creditor has given notice of their intention to be heard in the application or appeared today to oppose the orders sought.

Legal principles

1. I accept that the court has power under s 447A of the Act to make the variation sought. There are a number of decisions of single judges, including the decision of Owen J of this court in Re Paradox Digital Ltd,[2] as well as my earlier decision in respect of this matter,[3] where the court accepted this was the case.

   [2] Re Paradox Digital Ltd [2001] WASC 182.

   [3] Re Yeeda Pastoral Company Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed); Ex parte Tucker [2024] WASC 120.

2. The issue for determination is whether the court should exercise its discretion to make the orders sought. Factors that the court will take into account in exercising its discretion include whether it is feasible to convene a meeting of the creditors of the companies to consider the proposed variation, and whether the proposed variation has any effect on the creditors.[4]

   [4] Re Alita Resources Ltd; Ex parte Tucker [2020] WASC 430 [32].

Disposition

1. In this case, for the following reasons, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to exercise my discretion to make the orders sought.

2. First, the proposed variation has no effect on creditors. All that is sought to be varied is the time period in which completion should occur.

3. Second, the deed proponent (TLP4) proposes the variation, and the major creditors of the companies have consented to this. In this regard, I note there is evidence before the court that the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (who is the largest secured creditor of the companies) consents, as does Westpac Banking Corporation (a secured creditor of both Yeeda Pastoral Company Pty Ltd and Kimberley Properties Pty Ltd) and Australian Rangeland Meat Pty Ltd (the first‑ranking secured creditor of Kimberley Meat Company Pty Ltd).

4. Third, I accept there is a risk that there could be an application for special leave filed in relation to the orders of the Court of Appeal. I also accept that it is not yet possible to understand how real this risk is until after the Court of Appeal has published its reasons for decision. Given that this has not yet occurred, I accept that there is now insufficient time for a meeting of creditors to be convened to enable this position to be addressed.

5. Fourth, amendment of the DOCAs will avoid the possibility that there will be a termination of the DOCAs and will preserve the position of creditors that is envisaged by the DOCAs that have been approved by creditors of each of the relevant companies.

Conclusion

1. For these reasons, at the conclusion of the hearing, it was my view that it was appropriate to make orders broadly in terms of the plaintiffs' interlocutory process filed 29 July 2025.

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

KS

Associate to the Hon Justice Hill

26 SEPTEMBER 2025