Kassem v Milman International (Aust) Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 210

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Kassem v Milman International (Aust) Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 210

HEARING DATE(S) : 11/03/05

JUDGMENT DATE : 11 March 2005

Equity Division JURISDICTION : Corporations List

JUDGMENT OF : Young CJ in Eq

DECISION : Convening period extended for three weeks.

CATCHWORDS : CORPORATIONS [180]- Administration-Convening period- Whether to be extended.

LEGISLATION CITED : Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 439A

Ozem Kassem (P) PARTIES : Milman International (Aust) Pty Limited (Administrator Appointed) (D)

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 1867/05

COUNSEL : E T Finnane (P)

SOLICITORS : McCabe Terrill (P)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION :

- 2 - IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION CORPORATIONS LIST

YOUNG CJ in EQ

Friday 11 March 2005

1867/05 – KASSEM v MILMAN INTERNATIONAL (AUST) PTY LTD

JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: This is an application by an administrator to extend for three weeks the convening period of the second meeting under the Corporations Act. The application is made under s 439A(6) of the Corporations Act 2001. That Act, in many respects, imposes unreal burdens on administrators in getting ready on time, but as the Parliament has spoken, so the courts must respect the spirit of the Act. 2 Applications to extend the convening period are not automatically granted. First of all, the court must be satisfied that the administrator has, in the circumstances, done all that could be done, taking into account the economics of the situation. However, the evidence must then go further and demonstrate that if an extension is to be granted then within the period proposed for the extension the situation is more likely than not to be clearer than it is at the time when the meeting should otherwise be convened. 3 It is not enough to just make general assertions that the administrator has done a lot of hard work. The work done should be specified and it also should be noted what improvements are likely to happen in the extended period. 4 The evidence now satisfies both of those criteria and I make orders 1 and 2 in the originating process.