Pacek & Saltzer (No 4)

Case [2025] FedCFamC1F 252

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 1)

Pacek & Saltzer (No 4) [2025] FedCFamC1F 252

File numbers MLC2954 of 2020
MLC7293 of 2024
#…78
#…07
Judgment of WILSON J
Date of judgment 30 April 2025
Catchwords

FAMILY LAW – MAJOR COMPLEX FINANCIAL PROCEEDINGS LIST – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – respondents ordered to execute deeds and instruments to indemnify the applicant – respondents failing to execute the relevant documents – applicant seeking orders requiring a registrar of this court to execute documents to give effect to the orders made on 17 October 2024 – held, a registrar must execute documents.

FAMILY LAW – MAJOR COMPLEX FINANCIAL PROCEEDINGS LIST – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – two proceedings transferred to this court from the Supreme Court of Victoria – no cause of action survives either proceeding – held, the two proceedings cross-vested to this court from the Supreme Court of Victoria are dismissed pursuant to r 10.22.

FAMILY LAW – CORPORATIONS LAW – s 199A of the Corporations Act – whether s 199A applies to indemnities given in pursuance of court orders rather than voluntarily – detailed consideration of the statutory provisions containing a prohibition on companies indemnifying directors.

Legislation

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 199A, 199B, 199C

Companies (Victoria) Code 1981 s 237

Corporations Law s 241

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 138

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 79, 90AE, 95, 106A

Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 (Cth) s 15AA

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 r 10.22

Cases cited

Alexander v Ajax Insurance Co Ltd [1956] VR 436

Andar Transport Pty Ltd v Brambles Ltd (2004) 217 CLR 424

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v Nystram (2006) 228 CLR 566

Pacek & Saltzer (No 3) [2024] FedCFamC1F 680

QBE Underwriting Ltd v Southern Colliery Maintenance Pty Ltd (2018) 97 NSWLR 459

Rainer & Lopez [2025] FedCFamC1F 214

Re Brazilian Rubber Estates [1911] 1 Ch 425

Re City Equitable Fire Insurance Co Ltd [1925] Ch 407

Spain v Union Steamship Co of New Zealand Ltd (1923) 32 CLR 138

Sun & Yeng (No 5) [2024] FedCFamC1F 702

Sunbird Plaza Pty Ltd v Maloney (1988) 166 CLR 245

University of Woolongong v Metwally (No 2) (1985) 59 ALJR 481

Wallaby Group Ltd v QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd (2010) 240 CLR 444

Whitlam v National Roads & Motorists Association Ltd (2006) 58 ACSR 370

Division Division 1 First Instance
Number of paragraphs 58
Date of hearing 1 and 9 April 2025
Date of last submission 9 April 2025
Place Melbourne
In MLC 2954 of 2020
Counsel for the applicant Mr I. Coleman SC with Mr G. Thompson and Mr W. Newland
Solicitor for the applicant ISAKOW Lawyers
Counsel for the respondent Mr T. North SC with Mr C. Dunlop
Solicitor for the respondent J and K Law
In MLC 7293 of 2024
Counsel for the applicant Mr I. Coleman SC with Mr G. Thompson and Mr W. Newland
Solicitor for the applicant ISAKOW Lawyers

Continue reading Pacek & Saltzer (No 4)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Pacek & Saltzer (No 4) [2025] FedCFamC1F 252
Case
[2025] FedCFamC1F 252
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ms Pacek filed an application against Mr Saltzer, as well as several companies, seeking orders for the respondents to indemnify her for certain liabilities. The primary dispute centred on the execution of deeds and instruments to give effect to the orders made on 17 October 2024, and the transfer of two proceedings from the Supreme Court of Victoria to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. Additionally, the court considered the applicability of section 199A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to indemnities given in pursuance of court orders.

The court had to determine whether the respondents were required to execute the deeds and instruments as ordered, and if so, who was responsible for executing them. The court also needed to decide whether the proceedings transferred from the Supreme Court of Victoria should be dismissed as there was no surviving cause of action. Furthermore, the court examined whether section 199A of the Corporations Act applied to indemnities given in compliance with court orders rather than voluntarily.

The court held that a registrar of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) must execute the relevant documents to give effect to the orders made on 17 October 2024. The court concluded that the proceedings transferred from the Supreme Court of Victoria were dismissed as there was no surviving cause of action. The court found that section 199A of the Corporations Act did not apply to indemnities given in pursuance of court orders. The court ordered that a registrar of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) must forthwith execute the documents exhibited at pages 46 to 83 of exhibit DI-1 to the affidavit of Daniel Isakow made 18 November 2024. The court also dismissed the litigation commenced in the Supreme Court of Victoria in proceeding #...78 and in proceeding #...07 pursuant to rule 10.22 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021.

Orders

Orders of the court

MLC 2954 of 2020

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN

MS PACEK

Applicant

AND

MR SALTZER

Respondent

MLC 7293 of 2024

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN

MS PACEK

Applicant

AND

MR SALTZER

First Respondent

AND

H PTY LTD

Second Respondent

AND

Q PTY LTD

Third Respondent

AND

W PTY LTD

Fourth Respondent

AND

V PTY LTD

Fifth Respondent

AND

E PTY LTD

Sixth Respondent

AND

SALTZER PTY LTD

Seventh Respondent

#...78

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL COURT

CORPORATIONS LIST

BETWEEN

H PTY LTD

First Plaintiff

AND

SALTZER PTY LTD

Second Plaintiff

AND

Q PTY LTD

Third Plaintiff

AND

E PTY LTD

Fourth Plaintiff

AND

W PTY LTD

Fifth Plaintiff

AND

V PTY LTD

Sixth Plaintiff

AND

MS PACEK

Defendant

#...07

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL COURT

CORPORATIONS LIST

BETWEEN

H PTY LTD

First Plaintiff

AND

Q PTY LTD

Second Plaintiff

AND

E PTY LTD

Third Plaintiff

AND

V PTY LTD

Fourth Plaintiff

AND

MS PACEK

Defendant

ORDER MADE BY

WILSON J

DATE OF ORDER

30 APRIL 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT –

1. A registrar of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) must forthwith execute the documents exhibited at pages 46 to 83 of exhibit DI-1 to the affidavit of Daniel Isakow made 18 November 2024.

2. The litigation commenced in the Supreme Court of Victoria in proceeding #..78 and in proceeding #...07 is hereby dismissed pursuant to rule 10.22 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.