ALMER & STIERZNOW-ALMER

In the matter of *Almer & Stierznow-Almer*, Ryan J of the Supreme Court of Tasmania considered an application by Mr Almer concerning consent orders made on 11 March 2011. The dispute centred on the appointment of a liquidator for B Pty Ltd, a matter previously agreed upon by the parties. Mr Almer sought to have his application filed on 26 September 2011 heard, while Ms Stierznow-Almer was the respondent.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether to vary the existing consent orders regarding the appointment of a liquidator for B Pty Ltd. This involved determining the appropriate mechanism for resolving a deadlock in the appointment process, given the parties' inability to reach a consensus. The Court also had to consider the dismissal of all outstanding applications.

Ryan J reasoned that the existing consent orders required variation to provide a clear path forward for the liquidation of B Pty Ltd. The Court applied principles of contract and family law, aiming to facilitate the orderly winding up of the company in accordance with the parties' original intentions, while also addressing the practical difficulties that had arisen. The Court's approach was to empower one party to make the appointment if agreement could not be reached within a specified timeframe, thereby preventing further delay.

Consequently, the Court dismissed Mr Almer's application filed on 26 September 2011. Order 2.1 of the consent orders dated 11 March 2011 was varied to require the parties to use their best endeavours to agree in writing on a liquidator within seven days. If agreement was not reached, Ms Stierznow-Almer was authorised to appoint a liquidator without further reference to Mr Almer. All other outstanding applications were also dismissed.