Edwards v McVeigh as administrator T G wright Management Services P/L [2001] QSC 479

.·,state Reporting Bureau Transcript of Proceedings Copyright in this transcript is vested in the Crown. Copies thereof must not be made or sold without the written authority of the Director, State Reporting Bureau. SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CIVIL JURISDICTION JONES J Application No 85 of 2001 TOMMY EDWARDS and DEAN McVEIGH AS ADMINISTRATOR FOR T G WRIGHT MANAGEMENT SERVICES PTY LTD (ACN 081 642 480) (IN ADMINISTRATION) CAIRNS .. DATE 28/11/2001 JUDGMENT 1 REVISED COPIES ISSUED State Reporting Bureau Oaie 3 I )?.__/ ~( Applicant Respondent 4Th Floor, The Law Courts Complex, George Street, Brisbane Q. 4000. Telephone: (07) 3247 4360. Facsimile: (07) 3247 5532 -- 1 of 4 -- 28112001 Tl/RGC M/T CNS2/2001 (Jones J) HIS HONOUR: This is an application on the part of the applicant Tommy Edwards, an alleged creditor of T G Wright Management Services Pty Ltd (In Administration). The matter has been before the Court on a number of times resulting in orders made by myself on 15 August 2001 and before the Chief Justice on 20 August 2001. Since those orders public examinations of directors and other persons associated with the conduct have been undertaken. An arrangement had been made earlier for a creditors' meeting to be held on 13 December 2001. Allied to this application is a District Court action set to be heard before his Honour Judge White on Monday, 3 December 2001 which is expected to go some days. The administrators, having considered the position of the company and particularly information which has come forward as a result of the public examination, have in fact called a meeting of creditors to recommend to that meeting that the company be wound up. What this means, simply, is that the meeting of creditors has been brought forward by a matter of a few days. The applicant seeks to delay that advance of the creditors' meeting so that there can be tested, in the action before his Honour Judge White, his right as a creditor to vote at a creditors' meeting. 20 That decision may or may not be available before 13 December 30 2 JUDGMENT -- 2 of 4 -- 28112001 Tl/RGC M/T CNS2/2001 (Jones J) 2001 but the question of the applicant's voting rights really is a matter of limited effect in terms of whether the liquidation will go ahead. From the material contained in Mr McVeigh's affidavit, filed by leave today, it seems to me inevitable that the company will be wound up. If this did not happen at the request of the creditors' meeting in accordance with the administrator's recommendation then it would certainly provoke an application 10 to the Court for a Court winding-up of the company. On the material before me I would have little hesitation in ordering that the company be wound-up. What then is the interest that this applicant has in delaying what I judge to be an inevitable consequence? What is put before me by Mr Cuthbertson on behalf of the applicant is that by the delay there may be a determination in the District Court of the applicant's voting rights as a creditor. This may, if the decision were available, result in the creditor being able to suggest a different liquidator to the present administrator. The basis of his wanting a different administrator seems to rely upon some allegations that the administrators have engaged in some malpractice. That allegation is not particularly clear on the material before me but even if it were, it is a matter that has to be tested after hearing from the administrator. Even if it were the case that the current administrators are appointed as 3 JUDGMENT 20 30 -- 3 of 4 -- 28112001 Tl/RGC M/T CNS2/2001 (Jones J) liquidators, any allegation of malpractice could still be raised after their appointment and an application could be made for different liquidators to be appointed. Such an allegation would have to proceed in an orderly basis with all parties having an opportunity to be heard. As a consequence, there seem to me, based on the material in the affidavit of Mr Mcveigh, compelling reasons for the speedy winding-up of this company. I see no basis for delaying the consideration of such a proposal to 13 December based only on the possibility that his Honour Judge White will have delivered his reasons for judgment by that time. I see no prejudice to the applicant in not having the opportunity to air allegations of malpractice and to suggest that there ought be appointed a liquidator other than the present administrator. That is a matter which can be determined in an appropriate way in an application after the winding-up has occurred. For these reasons I would dismiss the application. HIS HONOUR: I reserve the question of costs of this application. 4 JUDGMENT 20 30 -- 4 of 4 --