FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Where the appellant husband appealed from property orders providing inter alia that the subject company be wound up pursuant to s 233(1)(a) or s 461(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – Where there was no challenge to the trial Judge’s findings that a purported share issue to the husband’s parents was oppressive and void, and it was conceded that an order for the winding up of the subject company was one which was open to his Honour in the exercise of his discretion – Where the appellant husband asserted that the trial Judge erred in failing to consider other available remedies given the subject company was solvent – No appealable error established.
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Where the appellant husband asserted that the trial Judge erred in finding that meetings did not take place as alleged by the appellant husband – Where there was an application to adduce further evidence by the appellant husband to support this challenge – Where it was conceded by senior counsel for the appellant husband that, if the application to adduce the further evidence was not successful, this challenge must fail – Where the propounded further evidence was beset with controversy – No appealable error established.
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Where the appellant husband asserted that the trial Judge erred in restraining the parties from submitting any proof of debt in the winding up of the subject company in that the order amounted to a denial of natural justice and/or it was beyond the jurisdiction and/or power of the Court – No appealable error established.
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Where the appellant husband asserted that the trial Judge erred in ordering, without sufficient specificity, the liquidator to rectify the records of the subject company; and, in particular, in failing to specify the source of the power by which the order was made – No appealable error established.
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Where the appellant husband asserted that the trial Judge erred in ordering the appellant husband and the respondent wife to bear two thirds of the liquidator’s costs in that the order amounted to a denial of natural justice and/or the trial Judge failed to identify the source of the jurisdiction and/or power by which the order was made – Where it was common ground that no party sought the order – Where the appellant husband had no notice of the making of the order – A denial of natural justice demonstrated – Appealable error established.
NOTE: The period for seeking special leave to appeal to the High Court has not expired.