Façade Treatment Engineering Pty Ltd (in liq) v Brookfield Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd

1. By reason of s 439A of the Act, the Administrators are presently required to convene the second meeting of creditors by no later than 22 April 2025 (and to hold that meeting by 30 April 2025). In an affidavit filed with the Court on 16 April 2025 (the Caddy Affidavit), Mr Caddy expresses the view that, having regard to the substantial work left to pursue, the Administrators are not presently in a position to prepare a meaningful report to creditors by 22 April 2025 as required by s 75-255 of the Insolvency Practice Rules (Corporations) 2016 (Cth) - particularly in the absence of the foreshadowed DOCA proposal. In that vein, I note the helpful observation made by Mr Costello KC that there exists "highly motivated" persons who are likely to produce a DOCA in terms that are, at least prima facie, acceptable to creditors in the near future. Should that circumstance indeed eventuate, the Administrators would, of course, be in a position to consider the proposal and provide a meaningful report to creditors as to the best way forward.
2. To that end, it is relevant the Administrators are not seeking an extension for any significant period. It is only for two months. That being said, it is apt to observe that extensions of time for the convening of the second creditors' meeting are not simply for the asking. It was not the intention of the Act that administrations were to assume the complexion of prolonged corporate restructuring exercises. On the contrary, the process is to be short and sharp, and the creditors are entitled to determine whether to accept a composition of their debts or that the company be put under the control of liquidators. On any view, Part 5.3A of the Act imposes limitations on creditors' rights which are rendered evermore severe each time there is an extension of the convening period. That is not to deny the infinite variety of circumstances that will arise for consideration and which can justify a number of extensions which further the purposes of the Part as are identified in s 435A of the Act. Nevertheless, courts must not lose sight of the rights of creditors, particularly unrelated creditors, that require close and constant consideration.
3. The principles relevant to the Application are set out in the careful and thoughtful submissions of the plaintiff, which I gratefully adopt. I have made reference to such principles elsewhere: see, eg, Marsden, Re Brindabella Christian Education Ltd (Admins Apptd) [2025] FCA 456 [46] - [48]; Rose, in the matter of Cowch Holdings Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2023] FCA 413 [11] - [17]; Park, in the matter of IG Power (Callide) Ltd (Administrators Appointed) (No 3) [2024] FCA 1245 [5] - [10]: and further ink need not be wasted repeating them here.
4. An important consideration in the calculus before me is the view(s) of the Administrators: see Re Strawbridge (in their capacity as joint and several voluntary administrators of each of Virgin Australia Holdings Ltd (admins apptd)) (No 2) [2020] FCA 717; (2020) 144 ACSR 347, 371 [68] (Re Strawbridge (No 2)). They are generally regarded as being "significant": see, eg, Woodhouse (Administrator), in the matter of Panoramic Resources Limited [2024] FCA 22 [18], citing Re Renex Holdings (Dandenong) 1 Pty Ltd (admins apptd) [2015] NSWSC 2002 [9]; Freeman, in the matter of Regional Express Holdings Limited (administrators appointed) (No 2) [2024] FCA 968 [35]. Here, the Administrators are well-known and respected within their profession, and, in my opinion, they have given thoughtful consideration to the circumstances of the case.
5. First, they have accorded careful cogitation to realising the best return for creditors of the Group which, in their view, would be best preserved by grant of the Application. Whilst that view is at odds with the need for a relatively speedy and summary administration process, it is entirely reasonable having regard to the difficulties encountered by the Administrators thus far and their proposed course should the Application be granted: Re Strawbridge (No 2) 370 [64]. Second, they have paid due regard to the "several advantages and few, if any, disadvantages" that might flow from the extension of the convening period, including the potential detriments associated with the premature winding up of the Company which is addressed within the Caddy Affidavit. In the context of this case, the time available has proven insufficient for the Administrators to complete the required tasks and they require more time.
6. Another issue in the weighing of these factors is whether the creditors consent to the proposed extension: see, eg, Wight, in the matter of Responsible Entity Services Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2024] FCA 458 [35(d)]. Whilst one member of the COI expressed slight hesitation as to the proposed length of the extension, all other members supported the Application and no opposition has been mounted before the Court today. It seems to me that there are a sufficient number of creditors who have been informed of this application that, if there were any significant problems in relation to the extension of time, one creditor would have come forward and produced some argument.
7. For present purposes, there is no difficulty in accepting that no creditor has any major grounds on which the application should be refused.
8. In those circumstances, and where there is a tangible prospect of the creditors being better off should the convening period be extended, it is appropriate to make the orders as proposed by Mr Costello KC and Ms Hooper for the first plaintiffs.

1. These are the amended and revised reasons for judgment given on 16 April 2025. Whilst the reasons given above refine and develop those that were delivered ex tempore, the substance of what was said on 16 April has not been changed nor has any other material change been made.

I certify that the preceding eighteen (18) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Derrington.