For directors facing disputes, governance challenges, or questions about personal liability, our director dispute lawyers Brisbane at Boss Lawyers offer strategic advice backed by 17+ years of complex commercial experience. Call Mark Harley on 1300 267 711.
A company enters voluntary administration. The administrator takes control, stops enforcement action, and begins assessing the company’s options. Then, a week later, a director writes to say the appointment was invalid because the board meeting that authorised it did not comply with the company’s constitution.
What happens next?
The short answer: the administration survives. The longer answer — confirmed by the Supreme Court of New South Wales in April 2026 in Ulan Quarry Products Pty Ltd (in administration) — is that courts have broad curative powers under s 447A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to save a defective administration where the company was insolvent (or likely insolvent) when the appointment was made. Procedural technicalities do not defeat legitimate insolvency administrations. That is the policy of Part 5.3A, and the courts enforce it.
This decision matters for directors, administrators, insolvency practitioners, and accountants advising financially distressed companies. If you are advising a Queensland company in or approaching financial difficulty, you need to understand how this works — before the crisis, not during it.
Background: Ulan Quarry Products Pty Ltd
Ulan Quarry Products Pty Ltd (UQP) operated a quarry at Ulan in New South Wales. Its major lender, B61 Pty Ltd, had advanced funds under a loan agreement entered into in January 2022. By late 2023, B61’s directors had been appointed to UQP’s board to provide oversight. By that stage, UQP’s acknowledged liability to B61 was approximately $2 million.
The board of UQP consisted of the B61 Directors and one Shareholder Director. By late 2025, the B61 Directors had growing concerns about UQP’s solvency. The Shareholder Director continued to assert the company was solvent — an assertion that, as the court later found, was entirely unsupported by credible evidence.
By March 2026, those concerns had become critical. Key personnel had resigned, alleging financial mismanagement by the Shareholder Director. A related entity that had been supplying labour to UQP went into liquidation, and its liquidator issued a demand for over $500,000. Months had passed without a single payment toward the B61 debt.
The B61 Directors concluded that UQP was insolvent, or was likely to become insolvent. They resolved to act.
The Appointment and the Constitutional Defect
On 23 March 2026, at 9:30 in the morning, the B61 Directors held a directors’ meeting. The Shareholder Director was not present. The B61 Directors resolved to appoint Joshua-Lee Robb and Jason Porter of SV Partners as joint and several voluntary administrators of UQP.
The difficulty was the notice. UQP’s constitution required that each director “must be given at least one Business Day notice of meetings of directors.” Notice of the 23 March meeting had been given on Friday 20 March 2026, at 3:43 in the afternoon. The meeting took place the following Monday morning at 9:30.
On 1 April 2026, the Shareholder Director’s solicitors wrote to the administrators alleging the appointment was invalid: the Friday afternoon notice had not given the Shareholder Director one clear Business Day before the Monday morning meeting. Saturday and Sunday are not Business Days. The argument was that the Shareholder Director had been denied any meaningful opportunity to attend the meeting and address the solvency question before the appointment was made.
The administrators responded immediately. The same day those questions were raised, they applied to the Supreme Court for urgent orders. That instinct was correct — and the court said so.
Two Different Legal Tools: Section 447C and Section 447A
The administrators sought relief under two provisions of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).
Section 447C(2) allows the court to declare whether voluntary administration began in relation to a company, and if so, when. Relief under s 447C is declaratory — not curative. The court must be satisfied, from the evidence, that the appointment was actually valid. Here, because the directors’ meeting had not been properly convened in accordance with the constitution, the appointment was not valid as a matter of fact. Section 447C relief was unavailable.
Section 447A(1) is a different tool entirely. It is the court’s broad curative jurisdiction to make orders about how Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act is to operate in relation to a particular company. It is not limited to declaring what happened. It empowers the court to make the voluntary administration regime operate as it should, even where something has gone wrong at the point of appointment.
In exercising the s 447A discretion, the court considers all the circumstances — principally whether the purposes of Part 5.3A would be best served by making the order and what is in the best interests of the company and its creditors. The authorities on this point are settled. In Hayes v Doran (No 2) [2012] WASC 486 and The Spanish Club Ltd (subject to DOCA) v Whittingham (No 3) [2012] NSWSC 526, the courts confirmed what experienced insolvency practitioners already knew: solvency at the time of appointment is the central issue. Constitutional technicalities are not.
The Court’s Decision: Insolvency Is the Determinative Factor
Brereton J confirmed that the constitutional notice requirement had not been met. “At least one Business Day notice” meant each director must have the benefit of at least one clear Business Day between the giving of notice and the meeting. Notice at 3:43pm on a Friday, with the meeting at 9:30am the following Monday, did not satisfy that requirement. There was not one clear Business Day between notice and meeting. The appointment was procedurally invalid, and s 447C relief was off the table.
On the s 447A application, however, the court made the curative order. The findings were straightforward.
The evidence established that UQP was insolvent at the time of the appointment. The company’s books and records were poorly maintained. The major creditor had gone unpaid for months. A related entity had entered liquidation. If the appointment were set aside, there was no certainty as to who would control the company or what steps would be taken to protect creditors. The B61 Directors had acted in accordance with their duty to take into account the interests of creditors at a point where insolvency was apparent.
The Shareholder Director, who had argued strenuously that UQP was solvent, put on minimal evidence actually supporting that contention in the proceedings. Assertion is not evidence — and in insolvency litigation, courts know the difference.
The administrators had acted correctly from the moment the challenge arose. As soon as the validity question was raised, they were in court the same day seeking urgent orders. That prompt conduct was expressly noted and approved by the court. Delay would have been fatal. Speed was rewarded.
The appointment was validated. The voluntary administration continued.
What This Means for Directors, Administrators, and Creditors
The Ulan Quarry Products decision has clear, practical implications. In our experience advising directors and insolvency practitioners in Queensland and in the Federal Court in Brisbane, these fact patterns arise more often than they should — and the consequences of getting them wrong are avoidable.
For directors who oppose a voluntary administration appointment: A procedural challenge will fail if the company was insolvent when the appointment was made. The Queensland courts and the Federal Court are not interested in constitutional technicalities where the substantive conditions for administration are satisfied. If you want to unwind an appointment, you must put on genuine, substantive evidence of solvency — financial accounts, independent valuations, expert opinion. A director’s bare assertion that the company is solvent is worth nothing. Bring the evidence or don’t bring the application.
For administrators: When you receive a challenge to the validity of your appointment, act immediately. Do not wait to assess whether the challenge has merit. Apply to the court for urgent orders the same day, or as close to it as possible. In the Queensland Supreme Court and the Federal Court in Brisbane, urgent applications in insolvency matters move quickly — but only if you move first. The Ulan Quarry administrators did exactly this, and the court said so approvingly. Delay creates uncertainty for creditors, deters third parties from dealing with the company, and undermines your position in any subsequent curative application.
For boards considering a voluntary administration appointment: Check the company’s constitution before the meeting is convened. The Replaceable Rules under the Corporations Act may not apply if the company has its own constitution, and constitutional notice requirements vary widely. Getting the notice right costs nothing. Getting it wrong can trigger exactly the kind of costly, distracting litigation this case illustrates — when the company is least able to afford it. Where notice requirements are tight, give notice with maximum lead time, check whether a waiver of notice is permissible under the constitution, and document every step. Do all of this before the meeting, not after the administrators are appointed.
For creditors and insolvency practitioners: The s 447A curative power is broad — but it is not a blank cheque. It operates to give effect to the purposes of Part 5.3A. In a genuine insolvency, a procedural defect will not be fatal to the administration. In a case where the company’s financial position is genuinely contested and the insolvency case is weak, the court’s scrutiny will be more demanding. The curative power does not exist to validate appointments that should not have been made. It exists to protect appointments that were substantively correct but technically imperfect.
The Broader Significance: Section 447A as a Rescue Mechanism
The Ulan Quarry decision is one in a settled line of authority confirming that s 447A is the most flexible curative tool available in the voluntary administration context. Its breadth reflects a deliberate legislative choice: the voluntary administration regime exists to give distressed companies the best chance of survival or, where survival is not possible, to maximise returns to creditors. Procedural defects at the point of appointment should not defeat those purposes where the substantive conditions for administration are satisfied.
Section 447A has been invoked in Queensland and federal proceedings to extend the convening period for the second creditors’ meeting, to authorise administrators to deal with specific assets, and to modify the operation of the moratorium provisions in particular circumstances. In each case, the central question is the same: does the order serve the purposes of Part 5.3A?
What Ulan Quarry Products adds — clearly and without qualification — is that in the context of a defective appointment, the court’s inquiry focuses on solvency and the best interests of creditors. A procedural objection, standing alone, will not succeed.
The Cost of Getting It Wrong
A challenge to an administrator’s appointment creates immediate practical disruption. Third parties will be reluctant to deal with the company. Contracts are uncertain. The administrator’s ability to investigate, secure assets, and assess the company’s position is impeded by every day spent resolving a validity dispute.
The message from Ulan Quarry Products is straightforward: courts will move quickly to resolve that uncertainty where the purposes of voluntary administration are being served. But the better outcome is to avoid the uncertainty entirely — get the appointment process right from the outset, and act without hesitation if a defect is identified after the fact.
Contact Boss Lawyers
If your company is facing financial distress, if you are a director weighing up the options for a struggling business, or if you are an insolvency practitioner dealing with a complicated appointment or creditor challenge, you need experienced legal advice.
Boss Lawyers advises directors, creditors, insolvency practitioners, and secured lenders across all aspects of corporate insolvency, voluntary administration, receivership, and restructuring. We understand the legal framework and the commercial pressures that distressed companies and their stakeholders face.
Mark Harley, Principal Boss Lawyers Pty Ltd Phone: 1300 267 711 Website: bosslawyers.com.au Level 27, Santos Place, 32 Turbot Street, Brisbane QLD 4000
The information in this article is general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. For advice specific to your circumstances, please contact Boss Lawyers directly.
Need insolvency advice? If your business is facing financial difficulty, early advice from experienced insolvency lawyers is critical. Boss Lawyers’ insolvency lawyers Brisbane help directors, creditors and stakeholders navigate voluntary administration, liquidation and restructuring options. Call us on 1300 267 711 for a confidential discussion.
Disclaimer: This is
Need voluntary administration advice? If your company is facing financial difficulty, voluntary administration can create a critical window to assess restructuring options and protect against creditor action. Our voluntary administration lawyers Brisbane guide directors and creditors through the entire process. Call Boss Lawyers on 1300 267 711.
general information only and is not legal advice. You should obtain professional advice specific to your circumstances before taking any action. For advice on your specific situation, contact Boss Lawyers on 1300 267 711.
