James Neate.
One of the key features to emerge from the recent Federal Court decision in Patel v Pleash [2025] FCA 77 is how eager Hall Chadwick partner Blair Pleash had been to win referral work from iLend Capital, the lender that appointed Pleash as administrator of Jubilee Infrastructure back on December 2, 2022.
On December 16, 2022 the court ordered that the administration end and after a hearing late in 2024 Justice Elizabeth Cheeseman made orders last week entitling Jubilee’s directors to recover their costs.
If they single out Pleash he’ll be entitled to sue for a contribution from the referrer whose referrals he coveted.
In her judgment delivered on February 14, 2025 Justice Cheeseman said “Mr Pleash was keen to ensure that he got the referrals from iLend that had been offered to him by Mr Salim (iLend’s sole director).
“He accepted that the referrals would generate revenue for his firm,” the judge said.
“He denied that he did not care whether there was a proper basis for his appointment because he just wanted the fees.”
The judge’s comments were based on testimony Pleash provided under cross-examination by PG Hely Chambers’ David Stack for Jubilee’s directors during the costs hearing in December last year.
The February 14 judgment, which iNO reported on earlier this week, also contains useful guidance for insolvency practitioners considering accepting an appointment under Section 436C.
It recounts an exchange between Pleash and lawyer James Neate of Lynch Meyer in Adelaide acting on behalf of Angas Finance.
Angas had made an offer to Jubilee’s directors which was derailed by Pleash’s appointment.
“On 7 December 2022, Mr Pleash emailed Mr (Duke) Wolfgramm and others working on the Jubilee matter reporting on a phone call he had with Angas’ solicitors at 6.15pm on the previous day (as written):
“I took a phone call from James Neate of Lynch Meyers at 6:15pm yesterday.
“He acts for angas (sic) who were apparently going to settle project finance for the company (Jubilee) last Friday.
“He asked me for the background to the appointment
“I advised Ilend was a secured creditor under Section 439C
“He suggested the PPSR would have vested and I advised it was not an appointment under the PPSR but the charge over the real property dated Feb 22
“He enquired whether it was a registered mortgage – I advised no it was a charge on the real property and he said if appointment was not valid – I was trespassing and I would not be entitled to an indemnity.
“I agreed with him when he said that was not his role to ventilate.
“He did say however Angas may have a damages claim as the company was not in a position to settle the finance.
“He asked what was the intention behind the VA – I suggested one option would be for the directors to pay the debt possibily through a Deed
“He suggested it seemed like a debt collection exercise and the appropriate process for that was receivership and I had duties to other stakeholders.
“I advised him I was aware of that – he advised he will forward correspondence outlining his concerns.”
We asked Neate if his client had or will pursue a claim for damages in respect of the derailed agreement Angas entered into with Jubilee but it’s still early in Adelaide.
Further reading:
Be the first to comment on "Axed administrator could sue referrer"