Westpac Banking Corporation v Forum Finance Pty Limited

Federal Court of Australia|2022-07-20|Before: Mr J, Mr P, Lee J

In the Westpac Proceeding (NSD616/2021)

The freezing order made against the third respondent, Mr Vincenzo Frank Tesoriero (Mr Tesoriero), by Order 4 of the Orders dated 2 July 2021 in relation to the interlocutory application dated 2 July 2021 (as varied on 9 July 2021; 27 August 2021 and 12 November 2021) be varied in the form of Annexure A and be extended and apply until further order (Freezing Order).
The interlocutory application filed on 17 June 2022 by Mr Tesoriero (Interlocutory Application) otherwise be dismissed.
The costs of the Interlocutory Application be costs in the cause.

In the Westpac Proceeding (NSD616/2021), the SMBC Proceeding (NSD681/2021) and the Societe Generale Proceeding (NSD642/2021) 4. The time for compliance with Order 7 of the Orders dated 10 March 2022 (March Orders) be extended so that any affidavit proposed to be relied upon by any Active Respondents (as defined in Order 6 of the March Orders) (other than Mr Tesoriero), is to be filed and served by 4pm on 10 August 2022. 5. The time for compliance with Order 8 of the March Orders be extended to 4pm on 31 August 2022.

(Delivered ex tempore, revised from the transcript)

A INTRODUCTION 1 Heard over three days has been an interlocutory application made by the third respondent, Mr Vincenzo Tesoriero, to vary freezing orders made against him on 2 July 2021 (Freezing Orders). In broad terms, Mr Tesoriero seeks an amount for his reasonable legal expenses of up to $1.866 million to be paid to his solicitor's trust account, in order to allow him to defend the proceeding through to the conclusion of the hearing with, he submits, a proper "equality of arms". 2 The attitude initially taken by the applicants, Westpac Banking Corporation (WBC) and Westpac New Zealand Limited (WNZL) (together, Westpac), was to consent to a variation of the Freezing Orders to provide for reasonable legal expenses of up to $642,511.65. 3 After I provided some preliminary indications as to an appropriate amount, Westpac modified its position, and now no longer opposes a variation to allow for an amount of $1.25 million. Senior Counsel for Mr Tesoriero conceded that something in "the ball park" of that amount is "getting close" to the sum appropriate, but "is not quite there". 4 For the reasons that follow, I consider that a variation of the Freezing Orders in the amount of $1.25 million for his "reasonable legal expenses" is appropriate.

B PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 5 In understanding Mr Tesoriero's interlocutory application, it is necessary to have regard to some of the background. 6 Proceeding NSD 616 of 2021 (Westpac Proceeding) is being case managed together with proceeding NSD 681 of 2021 commenced by SMBC Leasing and Finance, Inc. Sydney Branch (SMBC) (SMBC Proceeding) and proceeding NSD 642 of 2021 commenced by Societe General (SocGen) (SocGen Proceeding). Although some companies he controlled are now respondents to the SMBC Proceeding, Mr Tesoriero is not a respondent in either the SMBC or SocGen Proceeding. 7 The Westpac Proceeding was commenced on 28 June 2021, with Westpac seeking relief including damages against Forum Finance Pty Limited (Forum Finance), and the second respondent, Mr Basile Papadimitriou. 8 On 2 July 2021, the matter was brought back before me in my capacity as the Duty Judge to hear, relevantly, Westpac's ex parte interlocutory application seeking freezing orders against Mr Tesoriero. On that occasion, I ordered that Mr Tesoriero be joined as the third respondent in the Westpac Proceeding and made the Freezing Orders that are the subject of the present application. 9 The Freezing Orders are not "all assets" freezing orders, although they are of that practical effect, because they are relevant to assets up to the specified unencumbered value of $254,219,440.23. Consistently with the usual practice, they initially provided for two exceptions relevant to the present application: they did not prohibit Mr Tesoriero from paying up to $2,500 a week on his ordinary living expenses; or paying $25,000 on his reasonable legal expenses. 10 Since the initial orders of 2 July 2021, the Freezing Orders have been extended and varied by consent, although on a without admissions basis, on 9 July 2021, 27 August 2021, and 12 November 2021. On 9 July 2021, the Freezing Orders were varied to allow an additional amount for legal expenses; namely, $30,000 per month (up to the sum of $350,000) and up to $5,000 a week for ordinary living expenses. On 27 August 2021, the Freezing Orders were further varied and extended. On 12 November 2021, the Freezing Orders were again varied again to provide further for Mr Tesoriero's reasonable legal expenses in the amount of $450,000 until 10 March 2022. This is the exception for reasonable legal expenses currently provided for in the Freezing Orders. 11 As is customary when orders are made by way of interim preservation, the Freezing Orders included common form ancillary information orders requiring Mr Tesoriero to disclose his assets and liability position by way of a statement of assets and an affidavit verifying that statement (subject to any claim not to produce information by reason of the privilege against self-incrimination). That affidavit was required to be filed and served by 5pm on 8 July 2021. 12 Mr Tesoriero did not comply with those orders. Nor did he comply with further orders extending the time within which to disclose his asset and liability position. However, in the face of an interlocutory process brought by Westpac on 20 July 2021 seeking to charge Mr Tesoriero with contempt, Mr Tesoriero provided an affidavit of 21 July 2021 setting out his Australian assets (July 2021 Affidavit) and, subsequently, an affidavit of 3 September 2021 setting out his interest in assets outside of Australia (September 2021 Affidavit). As it turns out, an important aspect of the present application is the adequacy or sufficiency of this disclosure.

C THE APPLICATION 13 The present amount (of $450,000 up until 10 March 2022) was fixed at a time when it was foreshadowed that a strike-out application to be brought by Mr Tesoriero would be heard and determined in early March 2022. However, in the light of the proceedings being fixed for a final hearing commencing on 10 October 2022, on 10 March 2022, I made orders adjourning Mr Tesoriero's summary dismissal application to the trial. The consequence of this is that, as agreed upon by the parties, further funds are now required for Mr Tesoriero to defend the proceeding through to the conclusion of the trial. 14 As noted above, Westpac no longer opposes a variation to the Freezing Orders to increase the exception providing for Mr Tesoriero's reasonable legal expenses to the amount of $1.25 million. The source of those funds is, however, disputed. Namely, Westpac does not oppose the release of funds held up to the amount of $462,511.65 from an identified controlled monies account, because the release of those funds would not erode funds in respect of which proprietary claims have been made. This leaves a sum of $787,488.35 (from the proposed amount of $1.25 million) which, if allowed, would be paid over from funds in respect of which either Westpac or SMBC allege they have a proprietary claim. 15 Accordingly, the dispute really revolves around two somewhat narrow points: first, whether the Freezing Orders should be varied to increase the exception providing for reasonable legal expenses to the amount of $1.25 million or some greater amount (as contended for by Mr Tesoriero); and secondly, whether Mr Tesoriero should have access to funds, over which Westpac or SMBC make proprietary claims, in order to pay his legal expenses.

C.1 Adequate Disclosure 16 Given that the Freezing Orders are relevant only to those assets up to a specified unencumbered value, Mr Tesoriero bears the evidentiary onus of demonstrating that he does not have any other assets above and beyond that unencumbered value out of which the legal expenses could be paid: see Clout (Trustee) v Anscor Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 174 (at [19]-[20] per Drummond J). 17 The kernel of Westpac's opposition is that the disclosure of Mr Tesoriero has been manifestly inadequate or, at the very least, remains sufficiently opaque such that the Court cannot be satisfied that Mr Tesoriero does not have other assets available out of which reasonable legal expenses could be paid. 18 This opposition is unsurprising given the history of the matter. It is evident from the material that has now emerged that both the July and September Affidavits did not adequately and fully disclose Mr Tesoriero's assets as required by the Freezing Orders. Without seeking to be exhaustive, on 1 July 2022, Westpac pointed to the following deficiencies in Mr Tesoriero's disclosure to date. (1) The July 2021 Affidavit failed to disclose Mr Tesoriero's interest in the Mangusta XOXO yacht (which was subsequently disclosed in the September 2021 Affidavit). (2) The July 2021 Affidavit did not disclose Mr Tesoriero's interest in a property with the address 8-12 Natalia Ave Oakleigh South VIC 3167 and no explanation has been provided as to why this was not disclosed. (3) The affidavit of Mr Tesoriero sworn 19 October 2021 (October 2021 Affidavit) refers to a number of bank accounts that were not disclosed in the July 2021 Affidavit. Furthermore, despite Mr Tesoriero stating in his October Affidavit (at [4]) that he believes he may have "up to 30 accounts with NAB", only 18 bank accounts are referred to in the October Affidavit. (4) Mr Tesoriero did not disclose in his July 2021 Affidavit other vehicles and motorbikes which have subsequently been discovered by Westpac, including, for example, a 2019 BRP Can-Am Ryker 600 registration RYKER referred to in the Freezing Orders. (5) The July 2021 Affidavit refers to a property with address "22 Hight [sic] St, Rushworth 3612" as being owned by a company associated with Mr Tesoriero namely, 22 High Street Rushworth Pty Ltd: see July 2021 Affidavit, Annexure A, item 24. However, a copy of the historic certificate of title for the property at 22 High Street Rushworth shows that the property is owned by Rushworth Property Holdings Pty Ltd and does not appear to have ever been owned by 22 High Street Rushworth Pty Ltd. (6) Mr Tesoriero is said to have an interest in a café that is operated by 65 Nelson Street Enterprises Trust, however, no evidence as to the income or assets of this café has been provided. 19 For these reasons, Westpac submitted there is a significant disparity in the rental income and mortgage expenses as initially disclosed in the July 2021 Affidavit and the recent affidavit of Mr Tesoriero sworn 17 June 2022. 20 Mr Tesoriero has also been in default of other orders. When the interlocutory application was before me on 1 July 2022, I indicated that I was not disposed even to consider an application to exercise the discretion in favour of Mr Tesoriero in circumstances where he was in default of orders of the Court relating to discovery. Further, so I could have some assurances that there was transparency as to Mr Tesoriero's financial position, I required Mr Tesoriero to file and serve an affidavit deposing as to his current assets and liabilities position (including his current income and expense position) as at 11 July 2022, and stood the interlocutory application over part-heard to 19 July 2022. 21 Despite this, Mr Tesoriero did not comply with the order that I made on 1 July 2022. Belatedly an affidavit was filed and served on 12 July 2022, and a further affidavit was then filed and served on 18 July 2022 (July 2022 Affidavits). I am also now told that the default relating to discovery has been rectified. 22 On the recommencement of the hearing, Mr Tesoriero was cross-examined in relation to his affidavits and disclosure to date. As senior counsel for Mr Tesoriero correctly concedes, the disclosure of Mr Tesoriero in this case has been "less than ideal" and has "ragged edges": T140.27; T165.42. It might be thought that in some respects this is a fairly benign characterisation of the unsatisfactory approach taken by Mr Tesoriero to disclosure. 23 The following aspects of the evidence that he gave before me are of some particular concern. 24 First, there are assets that have not been disclosed. For instance, there is no reference in the July 2022 Affidavits to the existence of a Forbearance Deed with Judo Bank Pty Ltd: see Exhibit G (at 81). This is surprising, given the deed was executed on 14 June 2022, with the effect being to reduce the monthly repayments on the Berkely Street property to the amount of $33,000 per month (subject to interest rate changes). Mr Tesoriero's affidavit sworn on 12 July 2022 sets out that the repayments are $58,600 per month. 25 Furthermore, Mr Tesoriero has not been forthcoming in relation to his current account balances, the following of which were not disclosed in his July 2022 Affidavits: (1) an amount of $150,841.76 held in an account in the name of 14 Kirwin Road Morwell Pty Ltd as of 12 July 2022; (2) an amount of $11,945.42 in the name of 286 Carlisle Street Pty Ltd as of 30 June 2022 (Exhibit D); and (3) an amount of $40,921.15 in an account in the name of Tesoriero Investment Group Pty Ltd as of 30 June 2022 (see Exhibit E). 26 Secondly, there are aspects of Mr Tesoriero's evidence of his assets and liabilities that remain unclear. An example emerging during the course of cross-examination was a reference to the "John Tesoriero Trust" of which Mr Tesoriero was a beneficiary: see Exhibit J. Details of this trust were omitted from his previous affidavit material, and indeed it appears that the trustee of that trust may be the trustee of two or three other trusts in respect of which the Court knows nothing. 27 Thirdly, there is a remarkable disparity between the values ascribed to certain assets, including 10 rural Victorian petrol stations. Mr Tesoriero swore in his July 2021 Affidavit as to the value of those properties, based on formal valuations obtained in early 2020. In his July 2022 Affidavits, Mr Tesoriero deposed that the value of these properties remains substantially unchanged since his July 2021 Affidavit. However, those values are in stark contrast to the indicative valuations of those properties set out in a schedule of properties prepared by a broker engaged by Mr Tesoriero and his father, Mr Giovanni Tesoriero, in April 2022: see Exhibit C. I am satisfied on the evidence that, although Mr Tesoriero was not the source of these indicative valuations, they were provided on his behalf (and with his consent) by his broker to a proposed incoming mortgagee in relation to the service station properties in the event that their application to refinance the properties was successful. 28 The disparity between these valuations can be seen in the following table. Property March-April Valuation Indicative Value to Financier Estimate in Evidence 2020 8 April 2022 July 2022 2-4 Cowslip Street, Violet Town, VIC 3669 $3,486,000 $5,177,343 $3,400,000 160 Murray Valley Highway, Lake Boga, VIC 3584 $1,800,000 $2,944,052 $1,800,000 31 Ellerman Street, Dimboola, VIC 3414 $1,050,000 $1,735,440 $1,050,000 14 Kirwin Road, Morwell, VIC 3840 $1,140,000 $2,025,916 $1,140,000 89 Betka Road, Mallacoota, VIC 3892 $1,140,000 $1,738,911 $1,200,000 55 Nolan Street, Maryborough, VIC 3465 $1,200,000 $1,983,360 $1,200,000 9 Gregory Street, Ouyen, VIC 3490 $900,000 $1,440,000 $900,000 9-15 Main Street, Derrinallum, VIC 3325 $1,250,000 $2,185,455 $1,250,000 124 High Street, Taradale, VIC 3447 $562,500 $983,455 $560,000 9/269-275 High Street, Golden Square, VIC $3,580,000 $5,245,089 $3,500,000 Total $16,108,500.00 $25,459,021.00 $16,000,000.00

29 I described these disparities during submissions as "staggering". Although this description was contested by senior counsel for Mr Tesoriero, I think it is an accurate description as is reflected by the above figures.

C.2 Reasonable Legal Expenses 30 The simple point made by Westpac is that, in circumstances where I can have no confidence that Mr Tesoriero has been frank and transparent as to his assets, he cannot have discharged his onus to satisfy the Court that there are no assets available to him to source his reasonable legal expenses. 31 There is much force in this submission but, on balance, I do not think I should accede to it. I am far from satisfied that Mr Tesoriero's explanation on oath as to his assets and liabilities has revealed a complete picture of his financial interests in all material particulars. Having said that, I am conscious, as his senior counsel points out, that it is open to conclude that those areas where disclosure has been deficient may be more readily explained by a maladroit approach to the preparation of the affidavits than any conscious desire to withhold information from the Court. I do not think it is necessary for me to form a final view in relation to this matter for the purposes of this application, other than to note that I am conscious that Mr Tesoriero's financial affairs could be fairly described as Byzantine. 32 Wading through the complexity of a vast number of entities, discretionary trusts and bank accounts is not a straightforward task. It seems to me to be likely that the substance of Mr Tesoriero's asset and liability position has finally been revealed, despite the deficiencies to which Westpac rightly points. More relevantly for present purposes, I think, on balance, that there is unlikely to be a significant pool of sums upon which Mr Tesoriero can draw in order to access the funds necessary to conduct these legal proceedings fairly, without there being some variation of the Freezing Orders. I say this with a degree of hesitation, because I remain unconvinced that the true position concerning Mr Tesoriero's financial affairs has been completely disclosed with any precision. 33 Returning to the indicative valuations of the various properties set out in Exhibit C, Mr Tesoriero's father, or at least his father and other relatives, were said to have unencumbered real estate assets of approximately $50 million in April 2020. Although I consider I should specifically reject Mr Tesoriero's affidavit evidence that Mr Tesoriero is unable to continue to fund his son's lifestyle or his expenses, I do not think that this is determinative of the application. Notwithstanding my misgivings as to this aspect of the evidence, Mr Tesoriero's father has no legal obligation to continue to fund his son's legal expenses. 34 At the end of the day, I have to satisfy myself that there will be a fair trial according to law. The resources available to the applicants in these proceedings are very considerable. The amount of legal costs that have already been expended in relation to both this matter and to the administration of the Forum Group companies generally has no doubt been extremely large. This case is one of considerable factual complexity (at least superficially). It is unnecessary for me, for present purposes, to form a final view as to its strength, other than being satisfied that there is a serious question to be tried. I had no doubt that a prima facie case had been established sufficient to have persuaded me to grant interlocutory relief which is the subject of this application for variation. Given I may be the trial judge, and have not had access to all the material, I do not think it is appropriate for present purposes for me to go further in this regard. 35 Applications of this type do involve to some extent an evaluative process of trying to do the best one can to facilitate the overall justice of the case. I think there is a need to ensure that Mr Tesoriero is properly represented. Mr Tesoriero has already paid an amount of $180,000 to his current solicitors and is said to owe his previous solicitors the amount of $200,000 in legal costs, which is currently the subject of an ongoing dispute. 36 In fixing upon the figure of $1.25 million, I am conscious that there will be a need for Mr Tesoriero to pay a properly assessed or taxed amount payable to his previous solicitors, pay his solicitors and counsel who have undertaken work since November last year without payment, and also fund the work necessary to prepare the trial and appear at the hearing. 37 Evidence was given by Mr Tesoriero's solicitor of further amounts that will be necessary for Mr Tesoriero to defend the proceeding through to the conclusion of the trial. However, I consider this amount can be reduced through effective case management, for example, in relation to an amount of $370,000 proposed to be set aside for the payment of experts (which I consider to be unnecessary given the nature of the defence proposed). 38 I am satisfied that Mr Tesoriero can have a fair trial if the Freezing Orders are varied to allow him to have access to a figure of $1.25 million. If the case were to develop in some extraordinary way such that this assessment is wrong, then there obviously would be an ability for Mr Tesoriero to apply for a further variation. However, unless there was a very cogent reason for such an application, I doubt that it would be easy to persuade me to allow further funds to be disbursed. 39 I accept that this will mean that in addition to the $462,511.65 that can be paid from the identified controlled monies account, the amount of $787,488.35 will have to be paid from companies not presently in external administration, being funds in respect of which there is an extant proprietary claim. It appears to me that such a release of funds should operate fairly and equitably across those who currently assert that they have a proprietary claim, and I have been told by counsel for Westpac and SMBC that the relative proportions of the proprietary claims in respect of the available assets have been identified and no doubt that area of detail can be worked out between the parties.

C.3 Ordinary Living Expenses 40 Although not stated in the interlocutory application filed by Mr Tesoriero, an additional variation was sought in his written submissions in respect of the amount for living expenses provided for by the Freezing Order. 41 Despite an entitlement under the Freezing Order to ordinary living expenses of up to $5,000 per week, it is said that Mr Tesoriero has been unable to access those funds since September 2021. For this reason, Mr Tesoriero seeks a lump sum payment of $200,000 (being an amount calculated from September 2021 to the date of judgment). I do not propose to make that order. 42 Currently, the Freezing Orders provide for the not ungenerous amount of up to $5000 per week to be payable in relation to ordinary living expenses. This has been the case since 9 July 2021. While it is said that Mr Tesoriero has been unable to access those funds since September 2021, I do not consider that the fact that it is only being raised now entitles Mr Tesoriero to be "back-paid" the total amount up to which he was not prohibited from accessing under the Freezing Orders. Mr Tesoriero is not on his uppers. He has been able to fund adequately his personal expenses to date. 43 Further, I do not propose to vary the Freezing Orders so as to provide Mr Tesoriero with a lump sum for his ordinary living expense up to the date of judgment. If there needs to be some communication making it clear the nature of the exceptions that are in the current Freezing Orders, then I would expect both solicitors for the parties to send a joint communication to the relevant financial institution making it clear that he has an entitlement to have access periodically to those limited funds.

D CONCLUSION 44 Despite the fact that I have granted the variation of the Freezing Orders, I do not consider that the position taken by Westpac to this application has been anything other than reasonable in the light of what has emerged concerning Mr Tesoriero's compliance with his disclosure obligations to date. In those circumstances, my preliminary view was that there be no order as to costs. However, upon delivering the above reasons, senior counsel for Mr Tesoriero sought that the relevant costs be costs in the cause - a position readily adopted by senior counsel for Westpac. Accordingly, the costs of the interlocutory application will be costs in the cause. 45 Upon reflection, I think I should add a further comment to my above reasons revised following their delivery ex tempore. This comment relates to a matter I referred to briefly at the end of the hearing: T139.32-141.39. Evidence from Mr Tesoriero was adduced on his behalf, and Westpac (for entirely understandable reasons) cross-examined Mr Tesoriero at some length during this interlocutory hearing. Accordingly, it became necessary for me to assess Mr Tesoriero's evidence closely and observe him in the witness box. Although it was unnecessary for me to make general credit findings to dispose of this application, it would leave the parties in a state of incomplete information to fail to record that I necessarily formed opinions as to the reliability of Mr Tesoriero as a witness. Despite this, when I raised this issue, senior counsel for each of the parties did not suggest that my hearing the cross examination caused any ongoing difficulty with me continuing as the docket judge and conducting the final substantive hearing. 46 It is presently unclear as to whether Mr Tesoriero will be called and whether it will be necessary to hear him give evidence again. In fairness, however, I think I should record my view that the general impressions I formed of the evidence of Mr Tesoriero were unfavourable as to his reliability as a witness. Although I believe that I can fairly proceed to hear and determine the issues at the final hearing, I am well aware that this is not the test. I record these remarks to provide full transparency to the parties. The parties have been apprised of all relevant facts. I note that I will continue to proceed on the basis that I will hear the case, unless an application is made that I disqualify myself from doing so. I certify that the preceding forty-six (46) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Lee.

SCHEDULE OF PARTIES No. NSD 616/2021 Federal Court of Australia District Registry: New South Wales Division: General Respondents Fourth Respondent: Forum Group Financial Services Pty Ltd (provisional liquidators appointed) ACN 623 033 705 Fifth Respondent: Forum Group Pty Ltd (Receivers Appointed) (in liquidation) ACN 153 336 997 Sixth Respondent: Forum Enviro Pty Ltd (provisional liquidators appointed) ACN 168 709 840 Seventh Respondent: Forum Enviro (Aust) Pty Ltd (provisional liquidators appointed) ACN 607 484 364 Eighth Respondent: 64-66 Berkeley St Hawthorn Pty Ltd ACN 643 838 662 Ninth Respondent: 14 James Street Pty Ltd (in liquidation) ACN 638 449 206 Tenth Respondent: 26 Edmonstone Road Pty Ltd (in liquidation) ACN 622 944 129 Eleventh Respondent: 5 Bulkara Street Pty Ltd (in liquidation) ACN 630 982 160 Twelfth Respondent: 6 Bulkara Street Pty Ltd (in liquidation) ACN 639 734 473 Thirteenth Respondent: 23 Margaret Street Pty Ltd ACN 623 715 373 Fourteenth Respondent: 1160 Glen Huntly Road Pty Ltd ACN 639 447 984 Fifteenth Respondent: 14 Kirwin Road Morwell Pty Ltd ACN 641 402 093 Sixteenth Respondent: Canner Investments Pty Ltd ACN 624 176 049 Seventeenth Respondent: 123 High Street Taradale Pty Ltd ACN 639 872 512 Eighteenth Respondent: 160 Murray Valley Hwy Lake Boga Pty Ltd ACN 641 392 921 Nineteenth Respondent: 31 Ellerman Street Dimboola Pty Ltd ACN 641 392 887 Twentieth Respondent: 4 Cowslip Street Violet Town Pty Ltd ACN 639 872 352 Twenty-First Respondent: 55 Nolan Street Maryborough Pty Ltd ACN 641 392 912 Twenty-Second Respondent: 89 Betka Road Mallacoota Pty Ltd ACN 641 393 179 Twenty-Third Respondent: 9 Gregory Street Ouyen Pty Ltd ACN 641 392 707 Twenty-Fourth Respondent: 9 Main Street Derrinallum Pty Ltd ACN 639 872 736 Twenty-Fifth Respondent: 286 Carlisle Street Pty Limited ACN 610 042 343 Twenty-Sixth Respondent: 275 High Street Golden Square Pty Ltd ACN 639 870 545 Twenty-Seventh Respondent: Mazcon Investments Hellas IKE Twenty-Eighth Respondent: Palante Pty Ltd ACN 135 344 151 Twenty-Ninth Respondent: Anastasios Giamouridis Thirtieth Respondent The Forum Group of Companies Pty Ltd (in liquidation) ACN 151 964 626 Thirty-First Respondent Iugis Pty Ltd (in liquidation) ACN 632 882 243 Thirty-Second Respondent Iugis (UK) Limited Thirty-Third Respondent Iugis Holdings Limited Thirty-Fourth Respondent Iugis Global Financial Services Limited Thirty-Fifth Respondent Iugis Finance Limited Thirty-Sixth Respondent Spartan Consulting Group Pty Ltd (in liquidation) ACN 168 989 544 Thirty-Seventh Respondent Intrashield Pty Ltd (in liquidation) ACN 133 426 534 Thirty-Eighth Respondent Tesoriero Investment Group Pty Ltd ACN 161 088 115 Thirty-Ninth Respondent Mangusta (Vic) Pty Ltd ACN 631 520 682 Fortieth Respondent 193 Carlisle Street Enterprises Pty Ltd ACN 612 615 237 Forty-First Respondent 8-12 Natalia Ave Oakleigh Pty Ltd ACN 643 838 626 Forty-Second Respondent Iugis Hellas IKE Forty-Third Respondent Iugis Energy SA

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (13 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (1)

Cited By (2)