Re William Mary Holdings Pty Ltd (in liq)
[2023] VSC 728
•24 November 2023 (ex tempore), revised 6 December 2023
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
COMMERCIAL COURT
CORPORATIONS LIST
S ECI 2023 01715
IN THE MATTER of WILLIAM MARY HOLDINGS PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) (ACN 142 021 538)
BETWEEN:
| DUNCAN CLUBB (in their capacity as Liquidators of WILLIAM MARY HOLDINGS PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) (ACN 142 021 538) & ORS (according to the attached Schedule) | Plaintiffs |
| v | |
| GARY ROBERTS & ORS (according to the attached Schedule) | Defendants |
---
JUDGE: | Hetyey AsJ |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 24 November 2023 |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 24 November 2023 (ex tempore), revised 6 December 2023 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Re William Mary Holdings Pty Ltd (in liq) |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2023] VSC 728 |
---
CORPORATIONS – Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – External administration – Failure by directors to provide access to company property and records to liquidators – s 530C – Application by liquidators for warrant to search for and seize company’s property or books – Court satisfied of matters required by s 530C(1) – Warrant issued.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Plaintiffs | Mr J Kohn of counsel | TurksLegal |
| For the Defendants | Mr B McNab, solicitor | Stephen Diamond |
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 1
Background......................................................................................................................................... 2
Procedural history.............................................................................................................................. 5
Relevant legal principles.................................................................................................................. 9
Consideration.................................................................................................................................... 11
Conclusion......................................................................................................................................... 13
HIS HONOUR:
Introduction
By originating process filed on 27 April 2023, the first and second plaintiffs, Duncan Clubb and Mathew Blum in their capacity as liquidators of William Mary Holdings Pty Ltd (‘liquidators’ and ‘company’, respectively) filed an application seeking relief under various provisions of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (‘Act’), including ss 483(1), 530A, 530B and 530C, and ss 90-15(1) and 90-20 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) (‘IPS’) (which is Schedule 2 of the Act) seeking declarations of ownership of certain vehicles, together with orders for the delivery up of the vehicles and company books and records.
Over the course of the proceeding, the Court has made orders for, amongst other things, the inspection and collection by the plaintiffs of particular vehicles in the possession and control of Ms Julie Mifsud (‘third defendant’), a former director of the company and the discovery of documents by its current director, Mr Gary Roberts (‘first defendant’) regarding alleged transfers of vehicles to third parties and purported liens held over other vehicles by third parties, as well as the production of company books and records.[1]
[1]Additionally, on 12 May 2023, Connock J made an order that the Originating Process filed on 27 April 2023 be referred to an Associate Judge for hearing and determination pursuant to r 77.05 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 and, if required, also pursuant to r 16.1(3) of the Supreme Court (Corporations) Rules 2013.
The plaintiffs now press an application for the issue of a warrant under s 530C of the Act, authorising the search for and seizure of property of the company, namely particular motor vehicles.
The plaintiffs rely on the following material in support of their application:
(a) the affidavits of Duncan Clubb affirmed on 26 April and 23 November 2023;
(b) the affidavits of Allan Kawalsky affirmed on 20 July and 6 October 2023;
(c) the affidavit of Julia Stewart affirmed on 14 June 2023;
(d) the affidavit of Tom Whitmarsh affirmed on 26 October 2023;
(e) the affidavits of service of:
(i) Ashlea Herriott affirmed on 28 September 2023;
(ii) Sherril Scott sworn on 17 May 2023; and
(iii) Cheryl Claney sworn on 18 May 2023;
(f) an updated aide memoire dated 20 July 2023; and
(g) written submissions dated 26 October 2023.
During the course of the proceeding, the defendants have relied on the affidavit of Gary Roberts sworn on 14 June 2023.
Background
The company was incorporated on 12 February 2010. Since 21 December 2010, the company’s principal place of business has been 445 Lancefield Road, Kilmore VIC (‘Lancefield Road address’). The evidence also suggests the Lancefield Road property is the residential address of, and is half owned by, the third defendant. It is also the registered office of a related entity, William Mary Transport Pty Ltd (‘WMT’).
The first defendant has been a director of the company since 2 April 2019. Mr Gustino Mifsud (‘second defendant’) was a director between 7 July 2011 and 5 April 2016. He was made bankrupt on 3 August 2023 and his trustees in bankruptcy have elected not to participate in the proceeding. The third defendant was a director of the company between 22 February 2010 and 7 July 2012. She is also the sole director and shareholder of JMIF Pty Ltd, which is the sole shareholder of the company. In addition, the third defendant is the sole director and shareholder of WMT.
On 16 November 2022, the company was wound up in insolvency and the liquidators were appointed pursuant to an order of this Court.
On 1 December 2022, the liquidators sent a letter the first defendant notifying him of their appointment and requesting that he, among other things, deliver up company property, books and records and complete a Report of Company Activities and Property (‘ROCAP’). The ROCAP was provided to the liquidators by the first defendant on 6 December 2022. The ROCAP identifies the following vehicles as company assets:
(a) a ’Scania wreck‘ (vehicle identification number: YS2PM6X2Z01096848) (‘Scania’), which was said to be located at the Lancefield Road address;
(b) a 2000 Holden Commodore (vehicle identification number: 6H8VTK69HYL579073) (‘Holden’), which was said to be located at the Lancefield Road address;
(c) a 2002 Ford F250 Rigid Truck (vehicle identification number: 9BFHX210328076473), which was listed as stolen;
(d) a 2013 Williams Box Trailer (vehicle identification number: 6T9T21V18D3010001) (‘Williams’), which was said to be located at the Lancefield Road address; and
(e) a 2010 Western Star 4800FX prime mover (vehicle identification number: 5KKJAECK9BPAZ7867) (‘W Star’), which was also said to be located at the Lancefield Road address.
On 8 December 2022, the liquidators instructed their agent, Pickles Auctions (‘Pickles’), to repossess the company’s vehicles that they believed were located at the Lancefield Road address. The Pickles agent was informed by an unidentified woman at the Lancefield Road address that there were no such assets at that location. Since that time, and prior to the issuing of the proceeding, there have been numerous occasions where the plaintiffs have unsuccessfully attempted to retrieve the relevant vehicles.
From mid to late December 2022, the plaintiffs’ solicitors sent correspondence to the first defendant’s former solicitor, Ian Hone of Hone Legal, seeking the return of the vehicles listed in the ROCAP. On 16 December 2022, Mr Hone sent an email stating that: the Scania was available for collection from the Lancefield Road address; the Holden was available at another address; and the Williams and W Star were the subject of liens. Despite subsequent attempts by the liquidator's agent to contact the second defendant to arrange the collection of the Holden and Scania, this did not occur. Further, details of the alleged liens over the Williams and W Star were not provided, despite the defendant’s former solicitor indicating this information would be forthcoming.
Certificates of registration received by the liquidators from VicRoads indicate that the following vehicles were registered to the company as at 19 January 2023:
(a) the Scania;
(b) the Holden;
(c) the Williams;
(d) the W Star;
(e) a 1986 Freight Semi Trailer Van (vehicle identification number: 49578; registration number: YV74JB) (‘Freight Semi’);
(f) a 2002 Vawdry Semi Trailer Van (vehicle identification number: 6T9T25V9722AFA166; registration number: 06755S) (‘Vawdry’); and
(g) a 2009 SteelB Semi Container Carrier (vehicle identification number: 7ASSS143X9A408512; registration number: 75820S) (‘SteelB’).
Further, a VicRoads certificate relating to a 2019 Ram Double Cabin Utility (vehicle identification number: 1C6RR7NT2KS674108; registration number: BEP656) (‘Ram’) indicates the vehicle was registered in WMT’s name as at 19 January 2023 and acquired by it on 13 December 2019. However, according to Australian Securities and Investments Commission (‘ASIC’) records, WMT was only incorporated on 22 February 2021 (14 months after its supposed acquisition of the Ram). Further, in the affidavit of Gary Roberts of 14 June 2023, the defendants allege that the Ram was transferred to WMT in October 2021 and is under finance to Macquarie Leasing Pty Ltd. It is presumed – although not clear on the evidence – that the alleged transfer was from the company to WMT. There is therefore some uncertainty about the ownership status of this vehicle.
At any rate, the Ram, Freight Semi and Vawdry were not disclosed in the ROCAP provided by the first defendant.
Further unsuccessful attempts were made by the liquidators’ lawyers and Pickles to make arrangements for the collection of the Scania and the Holden in January 2023.
On 27 January 2023, the liquidators wrote to ASIC in respect of the first defendant’s non-compliance with requests to provide access to company assets and in respect of the alleged omissions of vehicles on the ROCAP. The letter incorporates a two-page schedule of correspondence sent to, and messages left with, the first defendant and others from late November 2022 to late January 2023 concerning the delivery up of company assets.
The liquidators’ solicitors issued a final letter of demand directed to the first defendant, through his former solicitor, on 4 April 2023. The letter foreshadowed the commencement of legal proceedings in the event company books, records and assets in the first defendant’s possession and control were not delivered within a stipulated timeframe. The second and third defendants were also served with final letters of demand on 4 April 2023 in a similar vein.
Procedural history
The matter has had a protracted and difficult history. At the first return on 19 May 2023, the plaintiffs sought orders for the delivery of company books, records and vehicles in the defendants’ possession. The defendants were represented by new lawyers and foreshadowed making an application to remove the first and second plaintiffs as liquidators of the company. Orders were made permitting the defendants to file and serve any interlocutory process and supporting affidavit to seek such relief. Orders were also made for the defendants to file any material in response to the plaintiffs’ application. No interlocutory process for the removal of the plaintiffs as liquidators was made within the time required, or at all.
On 16 June 2023 the Court made detailed and specific orders requiring, among other things that:
(a) pursuant to s 483(1) of the Act, the third defendant make the Scania truck and Freight Semi available for access, inspection and collection by the plaintiffs (including any keys and other documents necessary to facilitate this);
(b) pursuant to ss 483(1) and 530A(3) of the Act, the first defendant make the Holden available for access, inspection and collection by the plaintiffs (including any keys and other documents necessary to facilitate this); and
(c) in accordance with ss 483(1) and 530A(1), the first defendant make discovery of all documents in his possession regarding:
(iv) the alleged liens held by WMT over the Williams and the W Star;
(v) the alleged transfer of the Ram to WMT and its financing;
(vi) the alleged transfer to Mr Steven Tzaneros of the Vawdry and its financing; and
(vii) the alleged acquisition of the SteelB by the company on behalf of Portlink Logistics Services Pty Ltd (‘Portlink’); and
(d) the first defendant take all reasonable steps to produce to the plaintiffs all books and records of the company, including the books and records in the possession of Mr Jim Downey of J P Downey & Co, who provided professional services to the company (‘June production order’).
At a directions hearing on 21 July 2023, the Court was notified that the first and third defendants had failed to comply with the Court’s orders of 16 June 2023. Orders were made extending time for compliance by the first and third defendants to facilitate access, inspection and collection of the stipulated vehicles. Orders were also made for the defendants to file and serve by 11 August 2023 an affidavit concerning compliance with previous orders for specific discovery. The plaintiffs were directed by the Court to serve the directors of WMT, Mr Tzaneros and Portlink (‘interested persons’) with all the material filed to date and orders made in the matter, and to inquire whether those persons wish to seek leave to be heard in the proceeding[2] in relation to their alleged interests in the relevant vehicles. At this stage, Mr McNab was also acting for WMT. The defendants and the interested persons were required to file and serve any affidavits upon which they relied in the proceeding by 8 September 2023. I am satisfied that service was effected on the defendants and interested persons, in accordance with the Court’s orders. No substantive affidavits were filed by the defendants or the interested persons.
[2]See r 2.13 of the Supreme Court (Corporations) Rules 2023 (Vic).
On 27 October 2023, Mr McNab notified the Court that he no longer acts for the second defendant as a consequence of the second defendant’s bankruptcy. The plaintiffs confirmed the first defendant had not yet complied with the June production order. Further investigations undertaken by the liquidators revealed additional vehicles had been transferred from the company to third parties in the 18 months prior to its liquidation (‘newly identified vehicles’).
The plaintiffs’ lawyers engaged in correspondence with Mr Tzaneros and the lawyers for Portlink in relation to the Vawdry and the SteelB, respectively, and no longer sought orders in respect of those vehicles. Following inspections by their agent, the liquidators have also elected not to collect the Scania, Freight Semi and Holden. Therefore, two vehicles remain in issue: the Williams and the W Star. Accordingly, at the hearing on 27 October 2023, the plaintiffs sought and obtained a declaration under s 90-15 of IPS confirming the company’s ownership of those vehicles. Section 90-15 of the IPS allows the Court to ‘make such orders as it thinks fit in relation to the external administration of a company’. According to s 90-15(3)(a), such orders may include ‘an order determining any question arising in the external administration of the company’. Section 90-15 is broad in its scope and contemplates the exercise of judicial discretion and the determination of substantive rights.[3] In my view, the ownership status of the Williams and the W Star was a proper question arising in the external administration of the company.
[3]Re Polat Enterprises Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2020] VSC 485, [31] (Hetyey AsJ). See also Michael Murray and Jason Harris, Keay’s Insolvency: Personal & Corporate Law and Practice (Lawbook, 11th ed, 2022) [10.335].
The Court also ordered that by 4:00pm on 3 November 2023, in accordance with ss 530A and 483(1) of the Act and s 90-15 of the IPS respectively, the first defendant, third defendant and WMT make available for access, inspection and collection by the plaintiffs the Williams and the W Star vehicles (including any keys and other documents necessary to facilitate their collection and possession) (‘October access and collection order’). The plaintiffs indicated that they would seek the issue of a warrant pursuant to s 530C of the Act in the event of non-compliance with this order. The Court enlarged the scope of the extant June production order to include the newly identified vehicles and extended time for compliance until 10 November 2023 (’October production orders’). To the extent that the first defendant was no longer in possession, custody or power of the books and records called for, he was to file and serve by 4:00pm on 10 November 2023, an affidavit explaining his position and, if necessary, providing further explanation as to whether any of the documents previously produced dealt with the new categories of documents identified.
In his affidavit sworn on 23 November 2023, Mr Clubb relevantly deposes that:
(a) the first defendant failed to produce books and records of the company in accordance with the October production orders. He has also not filed an affidavit explaining his position;
(b) between 31 October 2023 and 13 November 2023, the plaintiffs’ lawyers sent three pieces of correspondence to Mr McNab, as solicitor for the first and third defendants and WMT. There was no response to that correspondence;
(c) the first defendant, third defendant and WMT failed to comply with the October access and collection order in respect of the Williams and W Star; and
(d) the plaintiffs seek the issue of a warrant for the seizure of those vehicles accordingly.
Relevant legal principles
Section 530C of the Act provides
(1)The Court may issue a warrant under subsection (2) if:
(a)a company is being wound up or a provisional liquidator of a company is acting; and
(b)on application by the liquidator or provisional liquidator, as the case may be, or by ASIC, the Court is satisfied that a person:
(i)has concealed or removed property of the company with the result that the taking of the property into the custody or control of the liquidator or provisional liquidator will be prevented or delayed; or
(ii)has concealed, destroyed or removed books of the company or is about to do so.
(2)The warrant may authorise a specified person, with such help as is reasonably necessary:
(a)to search for and seize property or books of the company in the possession of the person referred to in subsection (1); and
(b)to deliver, as specified in the warrant, property or books seized under it.
(3)In order to seize property or books under the warrant, the specified person may break open a building, room or receptacle where the property is or the books are, or where the person reasonably believes the property or books to be.
(4)A person who has custody of property or a book because of the execution of the warrant must retain it until the Court makes an order for its disposal.
In Brooks (Liquidator) v Bull, Re DV Bull Pty Ltd (In Liq),[4] Davies J summarised the three requirements for the exercise of the Court’s power to issue a warrant under s 530C, namely:
[4][2021] FCA 967, [7].
(a) the company is being wound up;
(b) the application is made by a liquidator; and
(c) a person has concealed or removed property of the company with the result that the taking of the property into the custody or control of the liquidator will be prevented or delayed.
Should these elements be established, the Court’s power to issue a warrant under s 530C is enlivened and may be exercised in the exercise of the Court’s discretion.[5]
[5]Re Ezyclad Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (2014) 98 ACSR 38, 47 (Robson J) (‘Re Ezyclad’).
Plainly, the first and second requirements are satisfied. Considerations relevant to the third element and to the Court’s discretion more generally were summarised by Banks-Smith J in Carrello (Liquidator), in the matter of Drilling Australia Pty Ltd (in liq)[6]:
[6](2019) 139 ASCR 187, 188-9.
(a)s 530C is ordinarily ‘a remedy of last resort’: Cvitanovic v Kenna & Brown Pty Ltd (1995) 18 ACSR 387 (‘Cvitanovic’).
(b)A warrant should be granted if the Court finds that there has been a ‘persistent pattern of non-cooperation and evasion’: Whitemore Holdings Ltd (in liquidation) [2004] FCA 806 at [9]–[10]. This does not appear to be a requirement of granting a warrant, but provides useful guidance.
(c)Factors that have been relied upon in deciding that a person has concealed or removed the property of the company include:
(a) refusals to comply with liquidators’ requests to deliver up the books and records of the company: Vartelas v Kyriakou [2009] FCA 1489 at [6];
(b) transfer of assets to, and continued use of the assets by, related companies or entities without proper accounting: Re Crisp; Buchanan Group Holdings Pty Ltd v Iliopoulos [2011] FCA 1521 at [11] (‘Crisp’); and
(c) moving of assets, books or records from one place to another: Crisp at [13].
I note that the Court may impose specific conditions on a warrant or limit its scope.[7]
[7]See Cvitanovic v Kenna & Brown Pty Ltd (1995) 18 ACSR 387; Re Ezyclad, 49; Re Oakwood Partners [2022] VSC 338 [46] (Attiwill J). Cf Morton v Robins (1996) 14 ACLC 197; Australian Securities Commission v Samson (1997) 24 ACSR 555.
Consideration
On the basis of the plaintiffs’ evidence filed in the proceeding, I am satisfied that the first and third defendants and WMT have concealed and removed the Williams and W Star vehicles, which are owned by the company. As a consequence, efforts to take the vehicles into the custody or control of the liquidators have been prevented or delayed.
I am further satisfied of the following matters:
(a) the first defendant’s conduct demonstrates a ‘persistent pattern of non-cooperation and evasion’. As an officer of the company, he has failed to provide essential information to the liquidators to enable the proper administration of the winding up for the benefit of the company’s creditors. In particular, since the commencement of this proceeding, the first defendant has failed to comply with orders of this Court, including for the production of company documents and discovery of documents concerning the company’s affairs;
(b) although by his affidavit of 14 June 2023, the first defendant asserts that WMT holds liens over the Williams and W Star, neither the first and third defendants nor WMT have produced any further evidence or documentation to verify the alleged liens. This is despite the Court’s previous orders on 16 June 2023 and 21 July 2023 (although I note Mr McNab informed the Court at the hearing on 24 November 2023 that he had recently given advice about the viability of the alleged liens);
(c) the first and third defendants and WMT have failed to comply with the October access and collection order;
(d) whilst a warrant under s 530C of the Act is a remedy of last resort, I am satisfied that alternative courses available to the liquidators have been exhausted;
(e) the evidence indicates that the Williams and W Star vehicles are, or have recently been, located at the Lancefield Road address;
(f) the first defendant, the third defendant and WMT have a current or former connection to the Lancefield Road address. As previously stated, the Lancefield Road address:
(viii) was the company’s principal place of business. The first defendant is a director of the company;
(ix)is partly owned by the third defendant and is her place of residence; and
(x) is the current registered office of WMT, of which the third defendant is its sole director.
(g) there is a reasonable inference available on the evidence that the Williams and W Star vehicles, which are assets of the company, have been transferred to WMT and that WMT has used, and continues to use, those vehicles without proper accounting to the company as their owner; and
(h) the issuing of the warrant is not formally opposed by the first and third defendants, although they submit it is an unnecessary step. Given the prolonged history of the matter, I do not accept that submission.
I am satisfied that it is appropriate for the Court to issue a warrant substantially in the form attached to these reasons (‘Warrant’). The Warrant will be confined in its terms to authorising the seizure of the Williams and W Star vehicles at the Lancefield Road address. In other words, the Warrant will not relate to company property generally, or be capable of being executed at multiple and unspecified addresses.
I do not consider it necessary for the liquidators to give the usual undertaking as to damages, having regard to:
(a) the confined nature of the Warrant;
(b) the Court’s previous declaration that the company is the legal owner of the relevant vehicles; and
(c) the fact that the first and third defendants and WMT have been afforded multiple opportunities to file responsive material in relation to the application but have not done so.
Conclusion
I will hear the plaintiffs on the precise form of order and of the Warrant. The first and third defendants should pay the plaintiffs’ costs of and incidental to the obtaining of the Warrant on a standard basis, with such costs to be taxed in default of agreement. The question of costs of the proceeding more generally will be listed for hearing over the coming weeks and the parties will be permitted to file any affidavit material and short submissions in advance of the further hearing.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
AT MELBOURNE No. S ECI 2023 01715
COMMERCIAL COURT
CORPORATIONS LIST
IN THE MATTER OF WILLIAM MARY HOLDINGS PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) (ACN 142 021 538)
BETWEEN
DUNCAN CLUBB AND MATHEW BLUM (IN THEIR CAPACITY AS LIQUIDATORS OF WILLIAM MARY HOLDINGS PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) ACN 142 021 538)
First and Second Plaintiffs
and
WILLIAM MARY HOLDINGS PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) (ACN 142 021 538)
Third Plaintiff
and
GARY ROBERTS
(AND OTHERS ACCORDING TO THE SCHEDULE ATTACHED) Defendants
WARRANT TO SEARCH FOR AND SEIZE A COMPANY’S PROPERTY
TO DUNCAN CLUBB of BDO Australia Pty Ltd, Level 11, 1 Margaret Street, Sydney in the State of New South Wales:
WHEREAS an application was made to the Court by DUNCAN CLUBB AND MATHEW BLUM in their capacity as joint and several liquidators of William Mary Holdings Pty Ltd (IN LIQUIDATION) (ACN 142 021 538) (the Company) (the Liquidators) by originating process filed on 27 April 2023 in this proceeding.
AND WHEREAS I am satisfied that GARY ROBERTS, JULIE MIFSUD AND WILLIAM MARY TRANSPORT PTY LTD (ACN 648 145 564) (Warrant Parties) have concealed or removed property of the Company with the result that the taking of the property into the custody and control of the Liquidators will be prevented or delayed.
PURSUANT to section 530C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) YOU ARE HEREBY AUTHORISED, between the hours of 8:00am and 6:00pm on a weekday, with such assistance as is reasonably necessary from members of Victoria Police and from any other persons whose assistance is reasonably required for the proper carrying out of this warrant, to search for and seize all property of the Company listed in Schedule 1 to this warrant (the Property) and which is in the possession, custody or control of the Warrant Parties and to deal with such Property as you see fit in accordance with the Company’s right and entitlement as its owner. As to the Company’s ownership of the Property, see Orders of the Supreme Court of Victoria dated 27 October 2023 and 24 November 2023 annexed at Schedule 2.
AND YOU ARE AUTHORISED in order to seize the Property under this warrant to break open a building, room or receptacle at 445 Kilmore-Lancefield Road, Forbes VIC 3764 where the property is or where you reasonably believe the property to be located.
| Dated |
| The Honourable Associate Justice Hetyey |
SCHEDULE 1 – PROPERTY OF THE COMPANY
2013 Williams Box Trailer with vehicle identification number 6T9T21V18D3010001
2010 Western Star 4800FX prime mover with vehicle identification number 5KKJAECK9BPAZ7867
SCHEDULE 2 – ORDERS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA DATED 27 OCTOBER 2023 AND 24 NOVEMBER 2023
SCHEDULE OF PARTIES
| S ECI 2023 01715 | |
| BETWEEN: | |
| DUNCAN CLUBB (IN THEIR CAPACITY AS LIQUIDATORS OF WILLIAM MARY HOLDINGS PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) (ACN 142 021 538) | First Plaintiff |
| MATHEW BLUM (IN THEIR CAPACITY AS LIQUIDATORS OF WILLIAM MARY HOLDINGS PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) (ACN 142 021 538) | Second Plaintiff |
| WILLIAM MARY HOLDINGS PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) (ACN 142 021 538) | Third Plaintiff |
| - v - | |
| GARY ROBERTS | First Defendant |
| GUSTINO MIFSUD | Second Defendant |
| JULIE MIFSUD | Third Defendant |
0
7
0