Arrow Building Group collapses into voluntary administration - leaving projects in the lurch
Arrow Building Group appointed an administrator, Hamilton Murphy's Stephen Dixon on April 22.
The company lists several projects as 'under construction' on its website, including a development of eight two-bedroom homes in Lilydale, eastern Melbourne.
'From forever homes to multi residential developments for investors, our skilled team work on a vast array of different projects,' Arrow Building Group's website says.
Photos showed the underslabs and structural steel for the homes had already been installed.
Other projects included homes in Heathmont, Dandenong and Windsor.
A staff member declined to comment when reached by phone on Tuesday.
In the financial year to March 2025, more than 2,600 Aussie construction companies became insolvent for the first time, up 23 per cent from the year prior.
Daily Mail Australia has contacted Hamilton Murphy for comment.
What's going wrong in the Australian construction industry?
Several well-known companies in the industry have collapsed, including Clough Group, Probuild, and Porter Davis Homes.
'Australia's homebuilding industry is characterised by low-profit margins and fixed-price contracts, meaning that there is little headroom or mechanism for builders to absorb pressures such as rises in material costs and labour shortages,' explained Bradley Hastings, a building expert from the UNSW Business School.
'This means that many homebuilders have been operating at negative cashflows, where suppliers don't get paid, and projects are left unfinished.'
He said that when a residential homebuilder goes bust, consumers become unsecured creditors and are at the bottom of the food chain after a lengthy insolvency process.
'The fallout does not stop at consumers, subcontractors also join consumers on the unsecured creditor's lists.
'Often, small or family-run businesses become unsecured creditors needing to cover the cost of their materials and staff if they want to continue to trade.'
Mr Hastings said that unlike other large investments, such as superannuation, the construction sector has little regulation regarding how consumer funds are utilised and protected.
'When a homeowner places a deposit with a builder, this money can be spent for any purpose.
'In some cases, there have been stories of builders on luxurious holidays at the same time as homes go unfinished.
'More often, given the cash flow pressures across the industry, consumer deposits from one project are used to complete prior commitments.'
He said a solution could be protecting consumer deposits with 'project accounts where consumer funds reside until they are drawn down by builders and subcontractors and the work is completed to standard.
'In the event that the builder goes bust, this money remains in place to pay subcontractors and continue the build. A side benefit of this approach is that it may improve the robustness of the construction industry, providing homebuilders with a motive to ensure that each project stands on sound financial footing.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
2 hours ago
- Times
Ministers ready for sale of parts of Sanjeev Gupta's Liberty Steel
The battle for control of parts of Sanjeev Gupta's Liberty Steel group took a twist in the High Court on Wednesday after the government said it would be willing to step in and facilitate a sale of the business. A group of creditors led by administrators of Greensill are seeking to place Liberty Steel's Speciality Steel UK (SSUK), which has plants in Yorkshire and Lancashire and employs 1,400 people, into liquidation. At a hearing about the creditors' petition, the court heard that ministers have lined up the state official receiver to appoint a 'special manager' should the business be placed into administration, an alternative insolvency process that could see SSUK taken on by new owners. A letter from the Department for Business and Trade referred to in court said the government was not 'taking steps to own SSUK' or to provide 'financial assistance' to it but the official receiver was willing to oversee a sale process if the business was placed into administration. The government said independent third parties had expressed an interest in returning some or all of the sites to steelmaking. SSUK is opposed to the creditors' petition to place the business into liquidation and has asked for an adjournment to allow time for Gupta to arrange a type of insolvency that would allow him to keep control of the business. That would require creditors including HM Revenue & Customs and UBS, the Swiss bank, to agree to a court-sanctioned transaction that would shed the speciality steel arm of its debts and tax liabilities, which are reported to run to hundreds of millions of pounds. Sally Barber, insolvency and companies court judge, adjourned the petition to allow her time to consider a draft application for the appointment of a special manager to carry out administration under the supervision of the official receiver. • Sanjeev Gupta seeks to reclaim UK steel business Liberty is Britain's third-largest steel producer and is owned by Gupta's GFG Alliance. Greensill, which collapsed in March 2021 amid a financial and lobbying scandal, lent billions of dollars to GFG. Its dealings with GFG form part of a Serious Fraud Office investigation into suspected fraud, fraudulent trading and money laundering related to Gupta's group, which has consistently denied wrongdoing. A barrister representing Greensill said in court that Gupta's preferred option would see SSUK sold via insolvency to a special-purpose vehicle 'connected to the current shareholder, Mr Gupta'. A spokesman for Liberty said GFG 'has invested nearly £200 million' in the group 'recognising the vital role steel plays in supplying the UK's strategic defence, aerospace and energy industries. We continue to believe our commercial solution backed by major private capital provides the best outcome for the business, its employees and all stakeholders concerned without cost to UK taxpayers or unnecessary uncertainty.'
The Independent
5 hours ago
- The Independent
Further delay in Holly Willoughby media company winding up case
Holly Willoughby 's media company is set to return to a specialist insolvency court in November following the result of a tribunal appeal. Roxy Media, the media production and management firm run by the TV presenter and her husband Dan Baldwin, is facing winding-up proceedings from His Majesty's Revenue & Customs (HMRC). A hearing at the Insolvency and Companies Court in April heard that the firm owed £377,000 in tax, which had been reduced from an unknown amount. Lawyers for Roxy Media said last month that the company was seeking to take the case to a tax tribunal. The company applied for a further adjournment on Wednesday to await the outcome of that appeal. Jon-Selous Borlace, for HMRC, told the specialist court: 'The company said it filed an appeal to the First-Tier Tribunal.' ICC Judge Sally Barber allowed the adjournment 'to await the outcome of the appeal', setting the next hearing for November 12. Willoughby set up the company with her husband to specialise in managing media clients. Records on Companies House indicate that she was appointed as a director of the company in 2014, and Mr Baldwin in 2008. The presenter is best known for previously fronting ITV daytime show This Morning and Dancing On Ice.
The Guardian
5 hours ago
- The Guardian
IIt's time Australia ditched the ‘winners and losers' mentality and built an economy that's best for us all
As pens and notepads were being laid out for start of the much-touted economic roundtable on Monday, the chair of the Productivity Commission, Danielle Wood, made a number of dark observations in an address to the National Press Club. People in their 30s today, Wood told us, are the first generation to be worse off than those born in the previous decade in terms of earnings, housing affordability, budget burden and climate impacts. Her comments laid bare how important reform of so many aspects of the economy and regulation are if this situation is to change. The flipside of the situation facing millennials is the largesse that has been laid out for the boomers, such as tax breaks on housing and superannuation that benefit those with already substantial resources, but add to the tax burden of lower-income households who can't get their foot in even one door. Quite obviously, not every boomer in Australia is sitting back with multiple investment properties and a multimillion dollar super balance. But boomers were three times more likely to own their own home in their 30s than their counterparts today are. And so, while millennials cry out for change, boomers resist even reasonable adaptation such as the removal of tax exemptions on super balances over $3m or phasing out negative gearing. And it's not just millennials v boomers. Before seats had been taken at the roundtable, business and unions were firing off at each other over issues such as working from home, work week length and AI adoption. Then add to all that the intense bipartisanship we now see in politics and it's a wonder anyone sat down together at all. And this is the rub. When it comes to policy decisions, too many are too quick to focus on what's in it for them instead of what is best for society as a whole. So, if we make housing more affordable for younger generations, those who are already on the housing merry-go-round cry 'unfair'. Increased density proposals are met with cries of 'Not in my back yard!' If we set much-needed strong climate targets to contribute to reducing the horror show of unnatural disasters that have already become much more frequent, and encouraging investment in green industries, then a narrow segment of vested interests (mainly fossil fuel polluters) focus only on the jobs that will be lost. They conveniently ignore the many more green jobs that will be created, not to mention the vast costs from failure to act imposed on individuals, the economy and the budget bottom line each time these exacerbated disasters unfold. We cannot deny that some policies, even as they contribute to national wellbeing overall, come with a cost to specific sectors or regions or even individuals. The go-to book in Canberra at the moment is Abundance, written by two American journalists, and described by the treasurer as 'a ripper'. Much of the book is devoted to the costs associated with trying to keep everybody happy, but ultimately only delivering increased regulation that leaves us all worse off. And the Abundance authors are perhaps right in saying we have moved too far in the direction of trying to prevent every possible loss at the expense of collective societal gain. (The authors are also silent on the deliberate spread of disinformation around supposed harms which also create barriers to progress. Think of the nonsense around whales and windfarms). Much like the Abundance authors, Danielle Wood says: 'Ministers should always weigh up the impacts of new policies on economic growth and productivity.' This is true, particularly when it comes to 'regulatory burden'. (As an aside, it's worth noting that for all the hype about 'red tape' – and there certainly are complex and duplicative processes facing business – Australia rates very highly by international standards in terms of regulatory quality. On one measure at least, we are second only to Singapore). But I'm not entirely convinced that a 'growth mindset', to use another current Canberra buzz phrase, doesn't risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If we only look at policy from the overarching perspective of growth and productivity, as important as these are, then we overlook other important considerations and by doing so add fuel to the 'us and them' fire. And that makes building a widespread consensus of support extremely difficult. The most critical of these considerations is distributional impacts. Inevitably, big policy reforms will rarely deliver a 'win' for everyone. But instead of pretending this is not the case, governments should be upfront both around the challenges and how they intend to address the impacts on those who may be disproportionately disadvantaged and unable to adjust without support. For example, when we introduced a carbon price scheme in Australia in 2012, widespread compensation was designed for trade-exposed industries and low-income households. When the costly support for the domestic car industry was finally removed, state and federal governments brought in a raft of programs to support workers and businesses in the supply chain. Such solutions may not be perfect but without them we are doomed to be stuck in an economy and society that delivers worse results for successive generations. Surely, we have had enough of that. The two defining crises of Australia today, I believe, are housing affordability and climate change. Required policies on both fronts involve trade-offs for some individuals, while delivering overall benefits to society. Let's stop the 'us and them', 'winners and losers' mentality and focus on planning for solutions such as density done well, credible biodiversity management schemes and regional economic development. Instead of placing barriers to reforms with a narrow, vested-interest mindset, I hope those at the roundtable discussions this week will focus on what is best for all of us. And, if it helps, keep the situation facing today's 30 year-olds in sharp focus and let that not be your legacy. Nicki Hutley is an independent economist and councillor with the Climate Council
