I. POOLING ORDER
47 Mr Vardy sought an order that the Current Group and the Further Companies constituted a "pooled group" for the purposes of s 579E of the Corporations Act. Such an order is stated in s 9 of the Corporations Act to be a "pooling order".
48 I am satisfied that each of the six preconditions for the making of a pooling order identified in In the matter of Kirby Street (Holding) Pty Limited (2011) 87 ASCR 84; [2011] NSWSC 1536 at [7] (Barrett J), is satisfied.
49 First, the Proposed Pooled Group comprises 36 companies and thus constitutes a group of two or more companies.
50 Second, each of the companies in the Proposed Pooled Group is in the process of being wound up. I note that as a result of the orders that were made on 20 December 2023, this includes each of the Further Companies.
51 Third, at least one of the conditions in subparagraphs (i) to (iv) of s 579E(1)(b) was satisfied, namely, subparagraph (iv) in that:
(a) there is "particular property" that is owned by "one or more" of the companies in the Proposed Pooled Group being the funds received from Titan Cranes in respect of the Labour Hire Business that was transferred by way of inter-company payments. The applicants also submitted that several entities owned "particular property", being a chose in action, in the form of the right to sue against Titan Cranes for amounts outstanding in respect of labour hire and ancillary services provided to Titan Cranes;
(b) that property was used, or was for use, by any or all of the companies in the Proposed Pooled Group; and
(c) each of the members of the Proposed Pooled Group contributed to the Scheme, carried on jointly by all of them, as "Invoicing Entities", "Employing Entities" or as entities holding funds from the Scheme or entities using Scheme funds to purchase real property and make investments.
52 Fourth, as to s 579E(12) of the Corporations Act, Mr Vardy gave evidence that:
(a) the members of the Proposed Pooled Group were involved in the operations of other members of the Proposed Pooled Group, including by reason of the large number of inter-company loan accounts;
(b) the controlling mind of each of the members of the Proposed Pooled Group was the late Mr Henderson;
(c) the largest unrelated creditor of the Proposed Pooled Group is the ATO, followed by state revenue offices;
(d) the winding up of each of the members in the Proposed Pooled Group is directly or indirectly attributable to the winding up of Fourteen and Boon, as that resulted in Mr Vardy uncovering the Scheme;
(e) the activities and business of the members of the Proposed Pooled Group were intermingled;
(f) the ATO is by far the largest unsecured creditor of the members of the Proposed Pooled Group and the only unsecured creditor that would be potentially disadvantaged by the making of the pooling order. The other unrelated creditors would generally be advantaged by the making of the pooling order; and
(g) there are administrative advantages and savings from the making of the Proposed Pooling Order, including that Mr Vardy would not need to obtain private litigation funding to pursue certain claims in the hands of one or more of the entities, and that Mr Vardy would not need to split time recording and disbursements between each of the entities in the proposed group.
53 Fifth, having regard to the matters set out above, in my view, it was "just and equitable" that the pooling order be made.
54 Sixth, the Court was not precluded by s 579E(10) from making the Proposed Pooling Order because no eligible unsecured creditor would be materially disadvantaged and the only eligible unsecured creditor that could potentially be said to be materially disadvantaged, being the ATO, had consented to the making of the order. For present purposes the only eligible unsecured creditors are, in summary terms, unsecured creditors of one or more members of the Proposed Pooled Group where those creditors are not themselves members of the Proposed Pooled Group: s 579(1)(a) of the Corporations Act.
55 Further, Mr Vardy has given notice of these proceedings and the hearing date to creditors of each the members of the Proposed Pooled Group under s 579J of the Corporations Act. Creditors have thus been given an opportunity to make their views known. Mr Vardy did not receive any objection to a pooling order being made from any creditor of any of the members of the Proposed Pooled Group and no creditor appeared at the hearing to oppose the making of the orders sought in the interlocutory process.
56 For the reasons set out above, I was satisfied that I should make an order determining that the Proposed Pooled Group constitute a "pooled group" for the purposes of s 579E of the Corporations Act.