In a nutshell
- Supreme Court Matter Cozan Pty Ltd Vs Schumacher (7494/19)
- I seek orders from the honourable Judge to remove the current orders, pursuant to either leave being granted or allowing Cozan Pry Ltd to recommence proceedings in the Supreme Court. For the following reasons.
- As I understand it, if the company is wound up then the Applicants unilateral and unlawful actions of removing the company’s funds without the right to do so would not be brought to bear. The company’s claim in the supreme court proceedings 7494/19 against her that is currently “stayed”, would also end.
- As Previously deposed Wife asserts that she took the company’s money to pay company debts. I have concerns that the money has only been used for her personal benefit including her legal expenses with the sole purpose of forcing Cozan to be wound up by withholding the company from being able to pay its debts.
- The wife/applicant used Company lawyers appearance in the Supreme court as a “The notice of a third-party disclosure finding”. Where according to Malcolm Burrows of Dundas Lawyers who was then acting on behalf of the company and was present at the hearing of matter 7494/19, states Company lawyer produced a file note dated 15 January 2019, that explains I happily signed my shares to Brenda. Which Mr Burrows states was “catastrophic to my case”?
- I was never afforded the opportunity of even defending myself against the allegations of Company lawyer on that day. The Company lawyer documentary evidence (file note) was inconsistent with any previous dialogue written or spoken, or the actual events that transpired.
- More importantly the fact the Company lawyer deposed to the court that the only matters discussed during the meeting on the 15 January 2019, was the Share Sale Agreement 181298 & Trust deed Variation 181300 as is reflected in his “file note dated 15 January 2019”. However, the attached Documents that the Company lawyer sent to Cozan ‘s [email protected] email on the 24 January 2019, contradicts his “file note” and what he told the court on the 26 July 2019.
- Company lawyer supplied his invoice for the works done on the debt recovery Job 190043, accompanied with his “Schedule of Professional fees and Disbursements”. Where he in fact clearly states that 15/1/2019 – meeting with new client in respect of new matter – charge $200+GST.
- The Company’s matter was stayed based on Company lawyer deposition and Cozan was in fact ordered to pay Company lawyer $7,500. The matter is currently being investigating by the LSC.