Australia's #1 for Law
Join 150,000 Australians every month. Ask a question, respond to a question and better understand the law today!
FREE - Join Now

Rostos

Well-Known Member
3 December 2017
29
1
124
Ok guys......i am not getting any love from the OMBUDSMAN.

You guys were right, i should be chasing the company.

I am thinking of taking the company to court. I would like your opinions.

The American Express Gold business card was obtained for the purpose for business transactions.

All transactions on the card were business in nature and authorised by both directors. That is, there was not one transaction that was not instructed and authorised by them.
All transactions were made with the promise that the company will pay for it.

This is evident in the historical statements that show all business transactions with the company paying for it. The last statement the one we are talking about, also has identical transactions.

What do you guys think?

Basically, the debt would not have arisen on the card had it not been for both of those directors instructing me to use the card as a condition of my employment for business expenses with the promise of them paying for it.

They are ultimately the root cause of why there is a debt on the card.

Remember the card is in my name AND the companies.

Do i have a shot?
 

Rob Legat - SBPL

Lawyer
LawConnect (LawTap) Verified
16 February 2017
2,452
514
2,894
Gold Coast, Queensland
lawtap.com
Uniform Commercial Code? You've just quoted what appears to be a piece of legislation from the USA - which has no application in Australia whatsoever.
 

Rostos

Well-Known Member
3 December 2017
29
1
124
I am getting an affidavit from one of the directors stating that the company agreed to pay for purchases that are business in nature on the card.

Also, things are about to get much more nasty.

I have found out that there was unpaid superannuation at the time i left.
At the time i left, the company just received a large cash payment from the sale of the customer database. An agreement was made to pay all outstanding Super and PAYG and taxes.
It appears that the 2 directors (who were also the shareholders AND signatories on the bank account) paid themselves and put the company into administration.

I just received a director penalty notice. One of the directors has already told me i wont have to pay for it, but i am just preparing just in case. I understand i can submit a defense under the legislation.

I was not a signatory on the bank account therefore i could not make payments.
I set up the super fund accounts for all out staff. I calculated the super for all the staff and all the payables.
The 2 directors would then authorise and make payments. They did not pay it all obviously to sustain cash flow. I understand insufficient funds are not an excuse for not paying all super. The view was we would contribute as MUCH as we could until we sold the customer base then we would pay ALL liabilities including Super and PAYG and GST.

Well, after 3 years, that time came and the company received a large payment. It was then promised they would pay all of it.
I also set up the Super funds when it turned to the platform method of payments. I set this up for the company. Set up all the ledgers etc etc. They promised to pay it. I could not myself as i was not an authority on the bank account.

This is when i left the company. I do not know what they did but know the ATO was the largest creditor (even after paying the ATO) there was still significant funds available (in the hundreds of thousands). It appears that one of the directors paid themselves and took off.

I have done some reading and i see there is a director defense against penalty notices. One of them is that the director can show there is nothing else i could have done.

Essentially falling short of putting knife to one of the directors throats and telling them to pay it, what else could i have done to ensure it was paid?