Kanevsky, in the matter of M.A Services Group Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed)

This case came out of the first 24 hours of a voluntary administration. M.A Services Group Pty Ltd was a national business supplying security, cleaning and maintenance services throughout Australia. On 23 December 2025, its director appointed Glen Kanevsky and Jason Tracy as joint and several administrators because the director had formed the view that the company could no longer pay its debts as and when they fell due.

The administrators immediately faced a scale problem. They told the Court that, based on their limited initial investigations, the company appeared to have about 1,770 employees, numerous contractors, real estate leases across Australia, about 175 owned or leased vehicles, and 140 PPSR registrations. They also believed there were 254 creditors owed $13,241,536. That meant the administration began with a large workforce, a large creditor body, multiple sites and assets, and a potentially complicated lease and finance position.

The timing made things harder. The appointment happened on 23 December, just before Christmas and New Year. The first creditors' meeting still had to be held by 7 January 2026, and the administrators still had to give the required written notice. They said that strict compliance with the ordinary rules for notices, meetings and creditor information requests would be impractical in those circumstances. They also said they needed a short period to work out the true extent of the company's leases, financed plant and equipment, and leased vehicles before personal liability attached to lease-related obligations.

The Court had to decide whether it was appropriate to modify how Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act operated for this administration. The administrators relied on the Court's power under s 447A of the Corporations Act and, for the notice and meeting-related orders, further or alternatively s 90-15 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule. For the lease-liability issue, they relied on s 443B(8) and alternatively s 447A.

The application covered four practical areas. First, how notice of the first creditors' meeting and other administration notices could be given. Second, whether meetings could be held by telephone or audiovisual conference only, without a physical venue. Third, whether the first meeting could be run in a livestream format where participants used a written live chat visible only to the chairperson or delegate, rather than speaking orally. Fourth, whether the time for responding to creditor requests for information could be extended and whether requested material could be provided through a creditor portal.

A separate issue, and the one most relevant to commercial lease readers, was the administrators' personal liability. The administrators asked the Court to order that their personal liability under the relevant lease provisions would begin on 16 January 2026, not immediately on appointment, and that the timing for giving notice under s 443B(3) be read accordingly. The Court therefore had to decide whether a short postponement was appropriate while the administrators investigated what leases and leased property the company actually had and what course best served the business and creditors.

Justice Dowling made orders substantially in the form sought. The Court held that it was appropriate to modify the administration process in light of the number of creditors, their spread across Australia, the need for timely communication, and the practical difficulties created by the time of year. The Court expressly made the notice and meeting-related orders under s 447A of the Corporations Act and further or alternatively s 90-15 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule.

On notice, the Court allowed the administrators to give notice of the first creditors' meeting by email where they had an email address for a creditor, regardless of whether the creditor had nominated to receive electronic notifications. If no email address was known but a postal address was available, notice could be sent by post. The administrators also had to publish the notice on ASIC's published notices website and on a creditor portal. Similar arrangements were approved for other notifications during the administration.

On meetings, the Court allowed creditors' meetings to be held by telephone or audiovisual conference only, in place of a physical meeting. For the first meeting specifically, the Court approved a livestream format where participants could use a written live chat function visible only to the chairperson or delegate, but could not orally address the meeting. The Court accepted that this still gave persons entitled to attend a reasonable opportunity to participate. The administrators also had to notify creditors that questions, requests for information or comments should, where possible, be submitted by midday on 6 January 2026. They then had to address those matters at the first meeting as far as practicable for at least two hours or until all such matters had been responded to, whichever occurred sooner. Within five business days after the first meeting, they had to provide information responding to all timely questions, requests and comments not already addressed in substance at the meeting.

On creditor requests for information, the Court modified the usual timing so that requests received after midday on 6 January 2026 could be answered within 10 business days rather than five. The Court also allowed the administrators to provide requested information, reports or documents by publishing them on the creditor portal.

On lease-related personal liability, the Court made an order under s 443B(8) and further or alternatively s 447A that the administrators' personal liability under ss 443A(1)(c) and 443B(2) would begin on 16 January 2026. The order stated that they were not personally liable for relevant liabilities in respect of property leased, used or occupied by the company, including amounts payable under the company's leases, during the period from 23 December 2025 to 16 January 2026 inclusive. The Court also ordered that the words in s 443B(3) referring to 'within five business days after the beginning of the administration' were to be read as 'by 16 January 2026'.

The lease aspect of this case is important, but it should be read carefully. The Court did not decide whether a particular landlord was right or wrong, whether rent was ultimately payable under a disputed clause, or whether a lease had been validly terminated. Instead, the Court dealt with the administrators' immediate exposure in the opening phase of the administration.

The administrators said they already knew the company had current leases of premises across Australia, financed plant and equipment, and 140 PPSR security interests, some relating to leased vehicles. But they also said they needed time to identify whether there were other leases or financed assets not yet known to them. The Court accepted that a short postponement of personal liability was appropriate while they investigated the true extent of the company's leases and property and considered what course best served the business and creditors, having regard to the objects of Part 5.3A.

For landlords, the practical effect is that an administrator may obtain a limited court-approved window before personal liability starts for leased property. That does not erase the lease or determine final rights. It changes the immediate risk position while the administrator works out what is occupied, what is needed, what can be surrendered, and what liabilities may exist.

For directors and managers, the case is a reminder that lease records are operationally critical in distress. If a business has multiple sites, vehicles or financed equipment, incomplete records can create immediate uncertainty and cost. Administrators may need to know, very quickly, the identity of counterparties, the assets or premises involved, payment obligations, notice details, and whether any PPSR registrations are connected to leased or financed property.

The Court's reasoning was practical. It focused on the number of creditors, the need for timely communication, the national spread of stakeholders, and the holiday timing. The administrators said they had email addresses for all customers and most other creditors. The Court accepted that email was quick, efficient and inexpensive, and that post could be used where no email address was known. Publication on ASIC's published notices website and on a creditor portal provided additional safeguards.

The Court also accepted that a virtual meeting format was appropriate for a large creditor body spread across Australia. Importantly, the Court was satisfied that a livestream meeting with written chat only, and no oral participation, still gave creditors a reasonable opportunity to participate. The reasons note that this format was proposed to help control the meeting and regulate behaviour where a large number of people might attend.

On creditor requests, the Court accepted that the administrators were likely to receive many inquiries, including multiple requests for the same information, over the period from 24 December 2025 into January 2026. The modified response timetable was therefore treated as reasonable and practicable. The Court also accepted that a creditor portal could be used to provide requested information, reports or documents.

For business owners, the broader point is that records and communication channels matter. A company with current creditor email addresses, organised lease records and a workable information portal is in a much better position to manage the first stage of an administration than a company with fragmented records and outdated contacts.

Landlords should read this case as a reminder that the first weeks of an administration can be shaped by court orders. If a tenant company enters administration, do not assume the administrator's personal liability starts on the ordinary timetable without checking whether the Court has made a modifying order. In this case, the administrators obtained a postponement until 16 January 2026 for liabilities in respect of property leased, used or occupied by the company, including amounts payable under the company's leases.

Creditors more generally should not assume that notices will arrive only by post or that meetings will be held in person. Here, the Court approved notice by email, post, ASIC publication and a creditor portal, and approved virtual meetings only. It also adjusted how the first meeting would run and extended the response time for some creditor requests. Missing one of those channels could mean missing an important deadline or update.

The Court also built in a safeguard. Any person with a sufficient interest could apply to vary or discharge the orders on three business days' written notice. That matters because it means the modified process was not beyond challenge if it created unfairness or practical problems for a stakeholder.

This case is best read as a procedural administration authority with a significant lease-management lesson. It shows that the Court is willing to make practical orders where strict compliance would be difficult and where the modified process still protects creditor participation in a reasonable way. It also confirms that the Court can make orders limiting administrators' personal liability under the lease-related provisions for a short period while they investigate the company's position.

For directors, the lesson is preparation. Keep lease schedules, finance documents, vehicle records, PPSR information and creditor contact details current. For landlords, the lesson is vigilance. Check whether there are court orders affecting notice, meetings or the timing of administrators' personal liability. For creditors, the lesson is procedural discipline. Monitor email, ASIC published notices and any creditor portal, and read meeting instructions carefully.

The case does not mean every administration will receive the same relief. The Court's reasons repeatedly point to the company's size, the number of creditors, the national footprint, the holiday timing and the administrators' limited time to investigate. But the decision does show the kinds of evidence and practical concerns that can justify urgent modifications to the ordinary administration framework.

The application was heard on 23 December 2025, the same day the administrators were appointed. Justice Dowling made the orders on 24 December 2025. The first creditors' meeting had to be held by 7 January 2026. Creditors were asked, where possible, to submit questions, requests for information or comments for the first meeting by midday on 6 January 2026. The temporary postponement of the administrators' lease-related personal liability ran until 16 January 2026. The reasons were published on 4 February 2026.

Those dates matter because they show how compressed the early administration timetable was. The Court's orders were directed to that immediate period, not to the whole life of the administration.

This page is based on the Federal Court decision in Kanevsky, in the matter of M.A Services Group Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2025] FCA 1694. The reasons refer to earlier administration decisions including Regional Express, Virgin Australia and Bonza as examples of similar forms of relief. This case should be treated as an administration procedure decision with an important lease-liability aspect, rather than as a general authority on the final rights of landlords and tenants under commercial leases.