1. On 14 August 2025 I made orders appointing joint and several provisional liquidators to Chalari Wines Py Ltd (Chalari), giving reasons which were reported as Christidis v Chalari Wines Pty Ltd

1. My reasons for making these orders follow.
2. Pursuant to Corporations Act 2021 (Cth) (CA) s 459P(1)(c), a contributory may apply to the Court for a company to be wound up in insolvency. For the reasons set out at [21] to [24] of the August Decision, the plaintiff has standing as she is either a contributory, or someone who alleges that she is a contributory, of Chalari.
3. Given the background set out in the August Decision, which is confirmed and elaborated upon in the PL Report, the plaintiff readily satisfied me that she should have leave to make the application pursuant to CA s 459P(2)(b).[1] There is at least a prima facie case that Chalari is insolvent.[2] There was no basis to exercise the residual discretion to decline leave.[3]
4. The power of the court to order an insolvent company to be wound up in insolvency is set out in CA s 459A.
5. In the PL Report, Mr Mohen reports that Chalari:

(a) cannot pay its debts and has current outstanding obligations;

(b) cannot trade;

(c) has significant liabilities of at least:

(i) $277,622 in unsecured creditor claims; and

(ii) $60,000 to $160,000 in secured creditor claims;

(d) has continuing liabilities; and

(e) has a lack of working capital.

Based on my preliminary findings in this report, an appropriate outcome for the Company is that it is placed into liquidation on the grounds of insolvency.

I consider the financial position of the Company, the current incapacity of the Director, and the lack of knowledge by Ms Christidis in all aspects of the business, including financial, production and trade activities, does not allow the Company to continue to carry on its business.

In the absence of an immediate injection of capital to satisfy the Company's current outstanding obligations and facilitate payment of the ongoing financing and lease payments, I consider the Company to be insolvent.

In this regard, I consider that the most appropriate outcome for the Company and its creditors would be for Mr Dudley and myself to be appointed as Joint and Several Liquidators of the Company. Placing the Company into liquidation will allow a Liquidator to realise the assets of the Company on a commercial basis for the benefit of creditors and allow creditor claims to become crystalised.

...

Given the matters raised in this report, I consider the appointment of a liquidator to be time sensitive

1. There is no suggestion in the evidence that Chalari is going to receive any injection of capital, immediate or otherwise. To the contrary, Mr Christidis (the second defendant and sole director) does not object to the orders sought by the plaintiff.[5] Accordingly, I was satisfied that Chalari cannot pay all its debts as and when they become due and payable and is thus insolvent. It was insolvent when the winding up application was filed and it remained insolvent as at the date of the hearing on 2 October 2025.[6]
2. Having come to that conclusion, there is no reason, let alone a compelling reason,[7] to decline, in the exercise of the court's discretion,[8] to order the winding up of Chalari. The public interest ordinarily requires that an insolvent company be wound up to prevent it from incurring further debts.[9] That is so in the present case.
3. Mr Mohen and Gregory Dudley both filed consents to act as registered liquidators of Chalari.
4. For these reasons, I made the orders in [4].
5. The plaintiff, as an alternative, also sought an order that Chalari be wound up on the ground that it would be just and equitable to do so. Given that it there was ample evidence that the company was insolvent it was sufficient for me to wind it up in insolvency. However, there was also ample evidence to wind up Chalari on the just and equitable ground. This evidence supports the conclusion that the appropriate exercise of the court's discretion was to wind up Chalari in insolvency.[10]

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

[1] Low v Joondalup Golf Management (Aust) Pty Ltd [2023] WASCA 33 [67] (Buss P and Murphy JA) (Low).

[5] Powell Affidavit, par 6, annexure BP-3.

[7] Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Merlin Diamonds Limited (No 3) [2020] FCA 411 [38] (O'Bryan J) (Merlin).