We recently published a tale about a Brisbane-based practitioner who squandered funds running a case he was never entitled to commence.
“On neither argument is Mr Posniak currently a partner of the Partnership. So he does not have standing to commence an action to dissolve the Partnership. It follows that neither do his trustees in bankruptcy have such standing”. Judge Michael Gething.
By the time the hapless appointee had conceded the obvious it was too late to imbue his accompanying remuneration application with even a jot of respectability. How the judge must’ve cackled as she slashed his fees to nought.
Today we share an example of something similar from the far West where Matt Vines and John Shanahan were recently put back in their box by a judge who found they didn’t have standing to apply for the orders they sought.
In Vines & ANOR -v- Konstek & ANOR [2025] WASC 487 Supreme Court of West Australia judge Michael Gething declined to find that a partnership had been dissolved on 24 September 2025, the date Perth labour hire operator Anthony John Posniak became a bankrupt.
In their capacities as the trustees in bankruptcy of Posniak’s estate Vines and Shanahan sought the declaration of dissolution as a first step on the path to being appointed interim receivers and managers of the assets of the Labourplus Security Partnership, which according to the judgment has 1200 employees on its books.
As judge Gething explained, Posniak had in the past been a trustee of each of the two Trusts underlying the partnership but after receiving a rude shock in respect of liabilities Posniak’s alleged to have incurred, business partner Franc Konstek had taken over.
“Mr Konstek appears to have taken control of the Partnership sometime in 2024,” the judge said.
“He found that Mr Posniak had run up liabilities in the Partnership in the order of $5 million. Financial statements of the Partnership had not been finalised, and no tax returns had been lodged for the years ending 30 June 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024. The financial statements that had been prepared by Mr Posniak were, in his view, incorrect.
“Mr Konstek describes concerns with the conduct of Mr Posniak in the operation of the Partnership in the recent times, involving, among other things, funds owing to the Partnership being paid to the bank account of Ridgefield Investments Pty Ltd. Mr Konstek deposes that there was no reason for this to have occurred.
“I do note that Mr Posniak, in his affidavit, provides an explanation for the concerns identified by Mr Konstek. For the purposes of determining the Application, I do not need to make any finding in relation to the issues raised,” the judge said.
Without access to the material the judge refers to the most interesting thing iNO can reveal about Ridgefield Investments is that its sole director and shareholder is Christian Madison, the man who threatened to blow the whistle on the Plutus Payroll conspirators months before the Australian Federal Police (AFP) swooped on the scheme’s architects in May, 2017.
An affidavit Madison deposed to in March 2017 in which he recounted details of meetings with Plutus architects such as Matthew Cranston was never read into evidence in the case and only came to light thanks to the efforts of the mainstream media performing its noble duty.
Konstek the judge said was doing a decent job of restoring the partnership accounts to something like compliance, having already brought the business into profit.
From his perspective he didn’t want receivers appointed or orders made to wind up the partnership and Konstec disputed the trustees’ assertion that the partnership had been dissolved at the moment Posniak became bankrupt.
In his affidavit Konstec said “there is now no amount owing that would entitle Mr Posniak to seek an indemnity from either Trust; that since he has been appointed trustee of each Trust, no debt or liability of the Partnership or Trusts has been incurred in Posniak’s name nor had Posniak or anyone on his behalf made a claim on him as trustee of each Trust for a debt incurred by Posniak”.
Without such an entitlement Vines and Shanahan as Posniak’s trustees would, Konstec argued have no standing to bring their application for a declaration that the partnership had been dissolved and the judge agreed.
“In my view, it is readily arguable that while Mr Posniak was the partner at law, each trust is beneficially entitled to the Partnership interest in equity,” the judge said.
“In my view, it is also readily arguable that the Partnership Agreement, properly construed, was between the trustee of each trust from time to time, with the beneficial interests continuing in each trust.
Therefore, the retirement and replacement of the trustee would not disturb the continued operation of the Partnership Agreement.
“An alternative argument is that on a change of trustee, the then existing partnership was dissolved and replaced by a new partnership on the same terms, between the new trustee of each trust, and the beneficial entitlements of each trust continued. There is no other argument that I consider plausible.
“On neither argument is Mr Posniak currently a partner of the Partnership. So he does not have standing to commence an action to dissolve the Partnership. It follows that neither do his trustees in bankruptcy have such standing,” the judge concluded.
Further reading:
Be the first to comment on "Trustees’ proceeding founders on standing status"