Being accustomed to “scurrilous”, the description of iNO’s output as “analytical” was sure to rouse your correspondent from his usual aspect, slouched in the corner of court room 8C during the weekly hearing of the NSW Supreme Court’s corporations list.
This is particularly so when the individual using the more complimentary term is the Corporations List judge, and so our level of attentiveness leapt during what turned out to be a futile application by Banco Chamber’s Madeline Hall for orders under the NSW Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010.
Hall’s client was seeking a suppression order covering reporting of proceedings his estranged wife had brought for relief in respect to shareholdings in various companies.
These included entities believed to control a Wolseley Road Point Piper pile reportedly sold for $95 million in 2020.
The applicant’s wife has alleged that her shareholdings in some of the companies were altered without her consent, with the effect that she’s been disentitled to the assets they control. The applicant insists his wife consented to the changes.
In the middle of the marital spat are PKF’s Mark Roufeil and Brad Tonks whom the wife had appointed as provisional liquidators (ProvLiqs) to one of the companies – Vaucluse 29 Pty Ltd – in late 2022.
ASIC records show that in July 2022 the share structure of Vaucluse 29’s holding company Point Piper One Pty Ltd was altered.
The 100 ordinary shares were cancelled as a consequence of “forfeiture”.
100 A class shares were then issued to the applicant and 9,990 C class shares issued to his wife.
A similar change was undertaken in June 2022 to the pair’s shareholdings in Vaucluse 29 Pty Ltd.
The wife, who unlike the applicant, is an Australian citizen, is seeking to have the cancellation and new issue reversed. She’s also seeking access to the contract for sale of the property, and all materials relating to the deal.
Apparently keen to minimise publicity in respect of the dispute, her husband commenced a cross claim in the Family Law Court earlier this month and then commenced the separate suppression order application under the state legislation that was heard in the NSW Supreme Court on Monday.
Hall argued that as the proceedings brought by the wife were now in effect captured by section 121 of the Federal Family Law Act, Justice Ashley Black should make complimentary orders under the state suppression act to ensure the public and the media were wholly aware of the extent of the restrictions now in place.
Also in attendance were Wentworth Chamber’s Roger Marshall SC for the wife and Piper Alderman senior associate Lidia O’Keeffe representing the ProvLiqs.
The court heard that Roufeil and Tonks, wary of potential “unintended consequences on the conduct of the provisional liquidation” if a suppression order was made, would seek a carve out, which Hall said her client opposed.
As it turned out however there was no need for any application to exempt the ProvLiqs because the judge concluded that it was not necessary to make the orders sought.
In deliberating on the application Justice Black at one point referred to various media reports included as exhibits that he said were typical of general media reports about properties that changed hands for large sums.
But then he referenced an article by “specialist insolvency” publication Insolvency News Online, which he said took an “analytical” approach. A rare assessment wethinks.
Be the first to comment on "ProvLiqs avoid suppression order carve out"