Chris Evans Transport is under offer. Creditors meet on 28 October, and some of its assets are claimed for a partnership.

Chris Evans Transport Pty Ltd, ACN 151 746 575, carries refrigerated produce, tipper loads and shipping containers out of Renmark, in South Australia's Riverland. It has done so under administrators since 21 May 2026, and its sale is now under offer.

On 28 October its creditors meet to decide what happens next. The notice ASIC published on 20 October gives them two choices: end the administration and return control of the company to its director, or wind the company up.

A rescue deal is not one of them. After the first creditors' meeting in June, the administrators looked at a proposed deed of company arrangement, a binding deal between a company and its creditors. In the Federal Court's words, it "did not come to fruition".

The other complication is what exactly is for sale. Mr Chris Evans, whose late wife was the company's sole director and shareholder, has told the Federal Court that a number of the company's assets belong to a partnership the couple ran. The administrators dispute that, and in August the court said the question could not be resolved at that stage.

Is Chris Evans Transport in liquidation? No. It has been in voluntary administration since 21 May 2026, and the administrators, Thomas Stuart Otway and Matthew Ormsby of SV Partners, have kept it trading. Liquidation is one of the two outcomes creditors can choose on 28 October.

Has it been sold? Not on the public record. The sale agent's listing read "under offer" on 20 October, and an offer is not a completed sale.

Xcllusive Business Sales, the exclusive agent, marketed the business as a going concern, with expressions of interest closing on 29 July. Its listing describes:

Those are the seller's figures, not audited accounts. Revenue is not profit, and assets in use are not necessarily assets owned. The company itself was registered in June 2011, so on the agent's figure the business is older than the company that runs it.

The company had one director, who was also its only shareholder. After her death, the executor of her estate, a solicitor, used a power in the Corporations Act to appoint a lawyer from his firm as the company's director. That was on 20 May. The next day the new director resolved to appoint the administrators.

Mr Evans challenged the appointment. He argued that the executor had no power to appoint a director because probate had not been obtained. He also argued that the new director had not genuinely formed the view the law requires before appointing administrators: that the company was insolvent or likely to become so.

The case did not go to a full hearing. On 9 June, with both sides' agreement, Justice Feutrill ordered that the administration operate as if the administrators had been validly appointed on 21 May. The court did not decide whether the original appointment was valid. It noted that neither of Mr Evans's grounds alleged bad faith, and that nothing in the evidence suggested the executor or the new director had acted other than in the company's best interests.

At that point the company employed 26 staff. One of the administrators told the court he believed the company was insolvent, but could not say from what date.

The second creditors' meeting is where creditors normally decide a company's future. This one opened on 26 June and was adjourned for the longest period the rules allow, 45 business days, to 28 August. The administrators wanted the time to advertise and sell the business.

By August the sale talks had advanced but could not be finished in time. On 25 August, Justice O'Sullivan allowed the meeting to be adjourned again, to no later than 28 October, in effect stretching the 45-business-day limit to 87, another 42 business days. He accepted that more time "will maximise the chances of a better outcome for creditors". The administrators' evidence about the sale negotiations was kept confidential because of its commercial sensitivity.

Only one person objected: Mr Evans.

Mr Evans had been in partnership with his late wife. At the August hearing his solicitor argued that a number of the company's assets in fact belong to that partnership, and opposed the extension on that basis. The administrators dispute his position. Justice O'Sullivan said the dispute was "not a matter that can be resolved at this stage", and not a reason to refuse more time.

The administrators' evidence raised two legal protections over the property the company uses. Matthew Ormsby told the court that if the meeting could not be put off, the company could be wound up, harming the sale, and two protections could be lost:

Section 267 works like this. If someone else holds an interest in a company's property, such as a finance arrangement or some longer leases, and that interest was not registered on the national register of security interests when administrators were appointed, the interest can be lost and the property treated as the company's.

The judgment does not say which assets vested this way, or whether any of them are among the assets Mr Evans claims for the partnership.

The resumed meeting is at 11:30am (ACDT) on 28 October, by Microsoft Teams. Proofs of debt and proxies are due by 5pm on 26 October.

The agenda covers the administrators' report, a summary of their receipts and payments, and their past and future fees. Then creditors pass one of two resolutions:

A deed of company arrangement appeared as an option on the June meeting notice. It has not appeared on any notice since.

All dates are in 2026 unless shown.

The trucks are still running. On 28 October, creditors decide whether the company behind them is handed back or wound up.

We publish public-record information, not advice. The administrators are the authoritative source on the administration and the sale, the court's orders and reasons are the authoritative record of what it decided, and nothing here is a statement about the ownership of any asset or about any party's claim.