News

High Court Dams Mighty River and Challenge to “Holding” DOCA Dismissed

After hearing arguments presented by parties’ counsel for a full day, the High Court sitting in Perth on 19 June 2018 adjourned for about 5 minutes and in a majority decision (with reasons to follow later) dismissed Mighty River’s challenge to the validly of “holding” DOCA which was previously upheld by Supreme Court of Western Australia Court of Appeal in Mighty River International Limited v Hughes [2017] WASCA 152.

Bennett + Co (now Bennett) acted for and successfully represented Mineral Resources Limited in this case from trial which was conducted in February 2017 in the Supreme Court of Western Australia through to the High Court. Bennett + Co instructed Mr Justin Gleeson SC, former Solicitor General of the Commonwealth and Dr Ben Kremer as counsel for Mineral Resources Limited.

Although the High Court is yet to publish its reasons for its decision, we think it is probable the key points which will be made when the reasons are published will be:

  1. A “holding” or “investigative” DOCA complies with Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).
  2. A “holding” or “investigative” DOCA will be valid if an administrator forms an opinion that such a DOCA is in the interest of the creditors.
  3. The administrators’ opinion as to the holding” or “investigative” DOCA must be properly recorded, reported to the creditors and sufficiently explained.
  4. A “holding” or “investigative” DOCA cannot be used solely for extending the convening period.
  5. It is for the body of creditors as a whole (and not the Court) to decide what is in their interests as to the future of the company in voluntary administration.

 

Dalitso Banda, Bennett + Co Senior Associate, says “I would like to thank and congratulate the Bennett + Co lawyers (past and present) that worked with me to successfully resist Mighty River’s appeal including Nathan Ebbs (Managing Principal), Kassie Comley, Reece Vogels and Amanda Templeton”.

 

For more information regarding this case and how this may impact your practice, please do hesitate to contact Dalitso Banda, Associate Principal, Bennett + Co

 


 

For more information, please contact the authors:
Dalitso Banda | Principal

Disclaimer: The information published in this article is of a general nature and should not be construed as legal advice. Whilst we aim to provide timely, relevant and accurate information, the law may change and circumstances may differ. You should not therefore act in reliance on it without first obtaining specific legal advice.

Related articles

Protected: The dangers of ‘greenwashing’: Claiming to be ‘green’ or ‘sustainable’ may expose your business to liability for misleading or deceptive conduct

There is no excerpt because this is a protected post.

arrowRead article

Explainer: the result of the Palmer v McGowan defamation dispute

On 2 August, the defamation dispute between Clive Palmer and Premier Mark McGowan concluded, as Justice Lee of the Federal Court of Australia delivered his judgment. Palmer said McGowan defamed him; McGowan …

arrowRead article

New image search tool for Australian wine trade marks, courtesy of Wine Australia

In 2021 the Australian government’s wine regulator, Wine Australia, introduced a database called the Export Label Image Search System (ELISS). ELISS was introduced in conjunction with broader regulations aimed at strengthening the …

arrowRead article