45 In this context, the timing of the relevant events is of significant importance. SeafarmsGroup Limited made provision in its accounts to pay to Canstruct up to $8.7 million and, indeed, had the capacity to meet the full amount of the adjudicator’s decision. Whilst it subsequently expressed “extreme disappointment” with the adjudication, and instructed its solicitors to commence proceedings in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory to have it quashed, it did not do that and instead pursued a different course.
46 At some time between 9 and 13 February 2023, it decided to cease funding Project Sea Dragon. It said that it made this decision on account of the result of the adjudication. That had the consequence that the directors of Project Sea Dragon, who were also the directors of Seafarms Group Limited, in turn decided to put the company into administration. The DOCA then proposed by Seafarms Group Limited resulted in Project Sea Dragon’s liability to Canstruct being released in return for a payment of approximately 10 to 11 cents in the dollar, and the company being returned to the control of the directors. From this series of events, there is more than a mere suggestion that Seafarms Group Limited and Project Sea Dragon havedetermined to utilise the administration process and the entry into the DOCA in order to avoid meeting the latter company’s indebtedness to Canstruct, save for paying about 10% to 11% of that liability.
