Dealing with the disgruntled is part and parcel of any practitioner’s daily grind but sometimes an example of resistance emerges that stands out as an exemplar of its kind.
In the ongoing tussle between ENA Development Pty Ltd liquidator Peter Krejci and a Mr Robert Sebie, Krejci and his lawyers at ERA Legal have had to repel allegations of conflict and conspiracy and of unlawful seizure whilst pursuing the realisation of assets in the face of a near indomitable resistance.
“It might be thought that the proposition that a liquidator has lived in the same street or the same suburb as a person or family associated with an entity to which he is appointed as liquidator would generally be a very weak basis upon which to make a serious allegation of this character.” Justice Ashley Black.
Krejci has also had to fight in the courts to establish his right to deal with property of the ENA Development Trust – specifically a property at Homebush in Sydney’s west – while various members of the family behind ENA, with assistance from others, have sought to prevent it, including by limpet-like occupancy of said property.
Fuelling allegations of conflict and conspiracy – which have been routinely denied and never tested – is the fact that Krejci’s primary opponent Mr Robert Sebie once lived in the same street as Krejci.
Sebie, who has demonstrated an exceptional resourcefulness in resisting Krejci’s effort to realise ENA assets, has claimed that Krejci has been in cahoots with a Mr Pham, the unfortunate purchaser of the former Sebie family home and the petitioning creditor who’s winding up application led to Krejci’s appointment as liquidator of ENA.
Proceedings aimed at terminating the winding up and/or removing Krejci as liquidator or as receiver of the assets of the ENA Development Trust have also been commenced in the Federal Court after similar efforts failed in the Supreme Court and when those proceedings have failed and Krejci has sought to continue to pursue assets fresh proceedings have been brought by associates of the ENA Trust beneficiaries while Sebie has routinely sought to be heard, though until recently not as a defendant.
In the most recent instalment of this tale of Spartan-like opposition NSW Supreme Court judge Ashley Black – who has no little familiarity with the matter – has dealt with a range of applications brought by Krejci and Sebie and the outcome is neatly summarised In the matter of ENA Developments Pty Ltd (in liq) [2022] NSWSC 1478.
At the hearing on October 21 the judge dealt with, among other things, Sebie’s applications to be joined as a defendant to Krejci’s application in respect of a caveat Sebie had placed over the Homebush property.
The outcome on the day was that Sebie’s applications were refused, he was ordered to pay Krejci’s costs, orders were made for Krejci to take possession of the Homebush property and a date set in respect of the caveat dispute.
Justice Black also ordered that the remainder of the proceedings be transferred to the Federal and Family Court.
Half convinced that Justice Black’s decisions represented an end to the saga, iNO sought confirmation from Krejci.
Predictably perhaps, they did not. The BRI Ferrier partner informed us that fresh proceedings seeking to terminate the winding up of ENA Development have very recently been commenced in the Federal Court by one of ENA Development’s directors, a Ms Rose Sebie, 86 of Prospect.
Further reading:
Be the first to comment on "Tenacious tenant spurns Supreme for Federal"