Ganem & Ganem & Anor

The applicant, Ms. Ganem, sought the appointment of receivers and managers over a family company and a partnership asset. The dispute arose from Ms. Ganem's alleged lack of access to company documents to which she was entitled as a shareholder, and concerns that payments due to her from the partnership asset had not been made in accordance with a previous court order. The matter came before Ryan J in the Family Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine whether receivers could be appointed to the family company and be authorised to sell its assets, particularly in circumstances where neither party expressed a desire to continue operating the company. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether it was just and necessary to appoint a receiver to take control of the partnership property, given suspicions of underpayment to the applicant. The court also considered an application for indemnity costs against the respondent.

Ryan J reasoned that the appointment of receivers was appropriate given the circumstances. The court found that the respondent had demonstrated extraordinary non-compliance with his obligations as a litigant, director, and in relation to a prior costs order. This non-compliance, coupled with the applicant's entitlement to access company documents and the suspected underpayment from the partnership, justified the intervention of a receiver. The court applied principles relating to the enforcement of orders and the need to secure assets in family law proceedings.

Ultimately, Ryan J ordered the appointment of a receiver to the family company with authority to sell its assets, and also appointed a receiver to take control of the partnership property. In relation to costs, the court awarded indemnity costs against the respondent, pursuant to s 117(2A) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), due to his demonstrated extraordinary non-compliance.