Beattie (Administrator), in the matter of Sharvain Facades Pty Ltd... [2025] FCA 355 | Case summary

These reasons concern an application by Graham Beattie (Administrator), of Sharvain Facades Pty Ltd (Administrator Appointed) (Company) for an extension of time within which to hold the second meeting of creditors and related orders. The Company is in voluntary administration. The application came before me as the Commercial and Corporations Duty Judge as an urgent application by reason of the impending end of the convening period unless extended by the Court.
An application for an extension was previously made and granted but for a period of only two weeks. That extension was made under s 439A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The Administrator now seeks to obtain a further extension of the convening period, relying in this instance on s 447A(1) of the Act. The Administrator also seeks a "Daisytek order" order under s 447A(1) to the effect that Part 5.3A operate in relation to the Company such that the second meeting of creditors required under s 439A may be convened at any time before, or within, five business days after the end of the convening period as extended by the Court (so called after the decision in In the matter of Daisytek Australia Pty Ltd (administrators appointed) [2003] FCA 575; 45 ACSR 446).
The previous extension of the convening period was from Tuesday, 1 April 2025 to Friday, 11 April 2025 by orders made on 28 March 2025 by the then Duty Judge: Beattie (Administrator), in the matter of Sharvain Facades Pty Ltd (Administrator Appointed) [2025] FCA 304 (Halley J).
In his first application, the Administrator had sought an order extending the convening period until 1 July 2025 and an accompanying Daisytek order. The Court did not accede to making orders in those terms, preferring instead to extend the period for two weeks only to enable the creditors of the Company (who had very little notice of the application) an opportunity to consider their position with respect to the application, particularly given the length of the extension that was sought by the Administrator. That explains the genesis of the present application, by which the Administrator now seeks to extend the convening period until 20 June 2025 with an accompanying Daisytek order.
The Administrator has used the intervening period to engage with creditors and interested persons in relation to the present application and to explain to creditors his rationale for seeking the extension now sought. In the result, following notice of today's hearing being given, no creditors or interested persons sought leave to be heard on the application. Two interested persons asked that the Administrator bring certain matters to the Court's attention on this application. The interested persons were (1) the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations in its capacity as administrator of the Fair Entitlements Guarantee Scheme (FEG Scheme) and (2) Roberts & Co (NSW) Pty Ltd, a party to a construction contract with the Company. The Administrator has addressed in his evidence the matters raised by the Department and by Roberts & Co and I consider each of those matters below.
At the hearing on 10 April 2025, and in the teeth of the imminent expiration of the existing extension, I concluded that the convening period should be extended until 20 June 2025 and accordingly, I made orders substantially in the terms sought by the Administrator. These are my reasons for doing so.

The principles which apply to an application such as the present are well-settled, and as Neskovcin J recently observed in the context of an application for a lengthy extension of time in the unique and complicated setting of the Whyalla Steelworks, such applications have become commonplace: Hams (Administrator), in the matter of Onesteel Manufacturing Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2025] FCA 219 at [24]. Justice Neskovcin canvassed the relevant authorities in some detail in Onesteel at [24] to [30].
By contrast, the present application is for a relatively short period. It is sufficient in the present context to note that the overarching object of Part 5.3A of the Act, of which s 439A and s 447A form part, is to administer a financially stressed company in such a way as to maximise the chance of the company continuing in existence or, if that is not possible, obtaining a better return for the company's creditors and members than would result from an immediate winding up: s 435A. The essential tension that the Court must balance is between the expectation that an administration will be undertaken in a relatively speedy and summary manner with the need to ensure the administration is not conducted without consideration of sensible and constructive options directed towards maximising the returns for creditors and any return for shareholders.
Out of an abundance of caution, the Administrator relies on the Court's power to make orders under s 447A given this is the second application for an extension after an initial short extension was granted: see Lombe, Re Australian Discount Retail Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 110; 27 ACLC 115 at [31] where Barrett J expressed doubt as to whether the power in s 439A(6) extended to granting multiple extensions. It is clear that the Court has that power under s 447A: Strawbridge, in the matter of Virgin Australia Holdings Ltd (administrators appointed) (No 7) [2020] FCA 1182 at [12] to [13] (Middleton J). The principles that apply when considering a further extension are the same as those that apply for any extension of the convening period: Virgin at [14].
I otherwise refer to and adopt the summary of the applicable principles set out in Frisken, in the matter of Xpress Transport Solutions Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (Administrator Appointed) [2023] FCA 448 at [30] to [38].

Beattie (Administrator), in the matter of Sharvain Facades Pty Ltd (Administrator Appointed) (No 2) [2025] FCA 355 (10 April 2025)

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (2 paragraphs)

Legislation Cited (4)

Cases Cited (2)