Mighty River International Limited v Hughes [2018] HCA 38

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KIEFEL CJ, GAGELER, NETTLE, GORDON AND EDELMAN JJ

Matter No P7/2018

MIGHTY RIVER INTERNATIONAL LIMITED APPELLANT

AND

BRYAN HUGHES AND DANIEL BREDENKAMP AS DEED ADMINISTRATORS OF MESA MINERALS LIMITED & ANOR RESPONDENTS

Matter No P8/2018

MIGHTY RIVER INTERNATIONAL LIMITED APPELLANT

AND

MINERAL RESOURCES LIMITED & ORS RESPONDENTS

Mighty River International Limited v Hughes Mighty River International Limited v Mineral Resources Limited [2018] HCA 38 Date of Order: 19 June 2018 Date of Publication of Reasons: 12 September 2018 P7/2018 & P8/2018

ORDER

In each matter, the appeal is dismissed with costs.

On appeal from the Supreme Court of Western Australia

Representation

C R C Newlinds SC with D R Sulan and P R Gaffney for the appellant in both matters (instructed by Nova Legal)

N C Hutley SC with J K Taylor for the respondents in P7/2018 and the second and third respondents in P8/2018 (instructed by Clayton Utz)

J T Gleeson SC with B R Kremer for the first respondent in P8/2018 (instructed by Bennett + Co)

Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

CATCHWORDS

Mighty River International Limited v Hughes Mighty River International Limited v Mineral Resources Limited

Companies – Voluntary administration – Deed of company arrangement – Where administrator required to form opinion about certain matters as soon as practicable after administration begins – Where administrator required to convene meeting of creditors within convening period – Where convening period may be extended by court order – Where company executed deed which imposed moratorium on creditors' claims while administrators conducted further investigations – Where deed provided no property of company available for distribution to creditors – Whether deed impermissibly extended convening period – Whether administrators formed the requisite opinions – Whether deed should have specified some property available for distribution to creditors – Whether deed a valid deed of company arrangement – Whether deed should be declared void.