Christidis v Christidis - [2025] WASC 419

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   CHRISTIDIS -v- CHRISTIDIS [2025] WASC 419
CORAM:   WHITBY J
HEARD:   2 OCTOBER 2025
DELIVERED          :   2 OCTOBER 2025
FILE NO/S:   CIV 2106 of 2025
BETWEEN:   HAYLEY BROOKE CHRISTIDIS
Plaintiff
AND
ALEXI EVANGELOS CHRISTIDIS
Defendant

Catchwords:

Partnership - Dissolution of partnership pursuant to s 46(f) and s 46(g) of the Partnership Act 1895 (WA) - Appointment of receiver and manager over partnership - Partnership can only be carried on at a loss - Just and equitable that the partnership be dissolved - Receivers and managers appointed over partnership

Legislation:

Partnership Act 1895 (WA)
Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA)
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA)

Result:

Application granted

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	A McDonald
Defendant	:	No appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Pragma Lawyers
Defendant	:	No appearance

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Christidis v Chalari Wines Pty Ltd [2025] WASC 330

WHITBY J:

(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 2 October 2025 and has been edited from the transcript.)

Introduction

This action concerns the dissolution of a partnership and the appointment of receivers and managers over the partnership.
The plaintiff and the defendant are married. In 2019, the defendant started a wine business - Chalari Wines Pty Ltd (Chalari Wines).
On 4 August 2025, the defendant took a flight to Dubai without letting the plaintiff know that he was leaving Perth. The plaintiff did not know the defendant’s whereabouts for some time. The defendant returned to Perth on 29 August 2025. The defendant is currently being treated in hospital for a mental health condition.
On 12 August 2025, the plaintiff commenced proceedings in this court, by COR 125 of 2025, seeking to wind up, and appoint provisional liquidators over, Chalari Wines. I will refer to that action as the Liquidation Proceeding.
On 14 August 2025, the court appointed Gregory Bruce Dudley and Jerome Hall Mohen of RSM as provisional liquidators of Chalari Wines (provisional liquidators).[1]
[1] Christidis v Chalari Wines Pty Ltd [2025] WASC 330 (Liquidation Proceeding Decision).
After the plaintiff commenced the Liquidation Proceeding and the provisional liquidators had been appointed over Chalari Wines, the plaintiff became aware of the existence of the partnership of A.E Christidis & H.B Christidis trading as Chalari Wines (Partnership). The Partnership has two partners - the plaintiff and the defendant.
On 26 September 2025, the plaintiff commenced these proceedings seeking orders for the dissolution of, and appointment of receivers and managers over, the Partnership.
For the reasons that follow, I make the orders sought by the plaintiff.

Material relied upon by the plaintiff

The plaintiff relies upon the following in support of the orders she seeks:
(1)her affidavit sworn on 26 September 2025 (Christidis Affidavit);
(2)certificate of urgency dated 26 September 2025;
(3)consent to act as receiver signed by Gregory Bruce Dudley dated 26 September 2025;
(4)consent to act as receiver signed by Jerome Hall Mohen dated 26 September 2025;
(5)affidavit…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Christidis v Christidis and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] WASC 419
Decision Date: 2 OCTOBER 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Christidis v Christidis was heard by the Supreme Court of Western Australia, with the plaintiff, Christidis, seeking the dissolution of a partnership with the defendant, also Christidis. The partnership had been operating at a loss, and the plaintiff argued that it was just and equitable for the partnership to be dissolved pursuant to sections 46(f) and 46(g) of the Partnership Act 1895 (WA). The court was required to determine whether the partnership could only be carried on at a loss, and if so, whether it was just and equitable to dissolve the partnership and appoint receivers and managers over the partnership.

The court considered the evidence presented by the plaintiff regarding the financial state of the partnership, including the significant losses incurred and the inability to continue operating the partnership without further losses. The court also examined the nature of the partnership agreement and whether it provided any mechanisms for resolving disputes or addressing the financial difficulties. The court concluded that the partnership could only be carried on at a loss and that it was just and equitable to dissolve the partnership. The court appointed receivers and managers over the partnership to manage the winding up of the partnership affairs.

The court's decision was based on the evidence presented and the provisions of the Partnership Act. The court found that the partnership was unable to continue operating without incurring further losses, and that it was in the best interests of all parties for the partnership to be dissolved. The appointment of receivers and managers was necessary to ensure that the partnership assets were properly managed and distributed to the partners according to their entitlements.

The final orders of the court included the dissolution of the partnership, the appointment of receivers and managers over the partnership, and directions for the management of the partnership assets and the distribution of the proceeds to the partners. The court also ordered that the receivers and managers were to be paid their costs and expenses from the partnership assets. The decision provides a clear example of the circumstances in which a partnership may be dissolved pursuant to the Partnership Act, and the role of the court in overseeing the winding up of partnership affairs.

Orders