Posted on Leave a comment

Fiona Hall (packing her bags) – profile

Fiona Hall packing her bags

How does someone become a Nuffield Scholar?

 

… Get your bestie to write the application?  Well that was Fiona Hall’s idea.

First, in mid 2014 she enquired with me whether I’d write the application for her (I didn’t and I am not her bestie).

Shortly thereafter the application was written by Mr Andrew Borrodell Gartrell (at the time a friend), the rest is history.  To see Fiona’s email to me click here, to see Fiona’s email to Gartrell click here.

Fiona, wife of Bernard, is not a director of any of the Bonny Glen companies and held no direct financial interest in those properties.

Fiona however is a joint shareholder and director of Caernarvon Cherry Pty Ltd and other related companies.

As at 8 November 2019, she does not own any direct interest in the Caernarvon homestead, Caernarvon orchard or Caernarvon shed.

Below is parts of the Hall’s family business structure and landholdings.

Hall family tree of businesses
Hall family tree of businesses

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Below is Fiona’s speech at the Nuffield Australia National Conference 2016 via Youtube.

Here Fiona ‘champions’ access for growers to data.

It will be interesting to see Fiona’s approach and response to subpoenas – should they be issued – in the proposed class action by cherry growers.

 

Another video interview by Fiona discussing the need for farm profitability.  Caernarvon is well known as having delivered ‘bills’ to fruit growers who sent their fruit to Caernarvon to be packed and sold, i.e. the net return to the grower was negative after deducting Caernarvon’s packing and marketing costs and the fruit ‘sold’.  It is unclear whether Caernarvon has at all times complied with the Horticultural Code of Conduct?

 

 

 

If you have any comments or information about Bernard & Fiona Hall, we’d love to hear from you including any documents via the instant chats below, through the below form or by phone on 1300-327123.

 

Posted on Leave a comment

Bernard Hall – updated profile

Bernard Francis Hall

Bernard Hall splashes out $8.2m (but fails to complete) – and as at 14 November 2019 – his companies still had only completed 1 of 5 purchases … 90% of the purchase prices still remains unpaid.  Moreover, 4 of Bernard’s companies are now in liquidation, yet despite this the liquidators seem in no hurry to, well, liquidate those 4 companies or their millions of dollars of real estate.

It seems a key assumption by Bernard Hall may be in error.  Bernard is quoted by the Central Western Daily as indicating a belief that he only needed to find the ‘other half’ of the equity he didn’t presently own in the Bonny Glen properties.

Bernard Hall - when $8m means $4m
Bernard Hall – when $8m means $4m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

More than 106 days after the auction (as at 8 November 2019), Bernard and his company’s have failed to complete the purchase of 4 of the 5 Bonny Glen properties he bid to purchase at a cost of $8.15m.

In early November 2019, a notice to complete under those 4 incomplete contracts has been issued upon Bernard Hall making completion, at a final price of about $7.4m, time being of the essence, essential by the close of business on 14 November 2019.  As at the close of business on that day (yesterday), Bernard’s purchasing companies had failed to complete.

Bernard, husband of Fiona, is a director of the Bonny Glen companies (in liquidation) and holds a direct financial interest in those properties.

Despite this, it is believed that Bernard cannot simply transfer those interests to the purchasing vehicles, he had to complete the purchase contracts (it is believed) hence the notices to complete.

It would appear from Bernard’s quotes (see article above) he believed he could merely just pay a top up sum to buy out his brother and parents from the properties?  Did his Nuffield Scholar wife also hold this belief?

Bernard (with Fiona) is a joint shareholder and director of Caernarvon Cherry Pty Ltd and other related companies.

The family tree of the Bonny Glen and Hall family/s is below:

Hall family tree of businesses
Hall family tree of businesses

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you have any comments or information about Bernard & Fiona Hall, we’d love to hear from you including any documents using our instant chat, the below form or by phone on 1300-327123.

 

 

Posted on Leave a comment

Hakan Kutup arrested, what next?

Hakan Kutup

Arrest

DC Partners has been assisting the victim of a crime for some months.

As reported, on 6 September 2019, Hakan KUTUP (“Hakan“) attended Lake Illawarra Police Station.  Hakan participated in an interview and was charged with:

  • 12 x Fraud,
  • 12 x Forgery,
  • 3 x Fraudulent conversion of money.

Hakan was granted strict conditional bail and will appear at Wollongong Local Court on 5 November 2019.

For other victims

DC Partners wishes to encourage anyone who has been a victim of a crime to report these immediately to NSW Police.  Specifically locals in the Illawarra should contact Lake Illawarra Police and detectives at 6 Pioneer Drive, Oak Flats 2529.

But, in addition, DC Partners are separately keen to hear from anyone who may have had past dealings with:

  1. Hakan during his time with ParkTrent Properties (aka Rotten Ron Cross),
  2. Century 21,
  3. Century 21 Ultimate Real Estate or elsewhere.

The previous dealings could be involving persons who have:

  1. not had rental bond’s deposited correctly,
  2. had suspicious charges added that they were not expecting,
  3. made previous complaints to NSW Fairtrading,
  4. received late rental payments,
  5. received no rental payments,
  6. not received rental bonds back at the end of a tenancy or otherwise.

No amount too big or too small.

Hakan’s family in property

Similarly, anyone with any similar experiences when dealing with relatives of Hakan KUTUP may also be of interest?  Other relatives of Hakan Kutup seemingly involved in property include:

Other remedies

DCP Litigation acknowledges the glacial speed NSW Fairtrading seems to work at?  We are considering helping a number of victims to pursue claims.  This may involve a class action against NSW Fairtrading.  We are also helping clients claim against the government’s Fidelity Fund or via the court’s.

In this regard, we are considering a class action for victims of Hakan Kutup perhaps against NSW Fairtrading?

Please complete the contact form to register an interest in joining the class action.  A class action requires a minimum of 7 claimants with the same loss against a common defendant.

NSW Fairtrading class action

join
Posted on Leave a comment

DCPLH v Caernarvon Cherry Pty Ltd – potential growers class action

Biteroit - Caernarvon Cherry

DCP Litigation Holdings is inviting expressions of interest from potential class action claimants against Caernarvon Cherry Pty Ltd ACN 111 047 191 (“Caernarvon”).

Caernarvon Cherry Pty Ltd is a fruit packing operator located at 474 Canobolas Rd, Orange NSW 2800 and predominantly packs Cherries and Apples under the Biteriot brand for Woolworths, Harris Farm and numerous export supermarket chains.

DCP Litigation Holdings is the assignee of the claims of a number of fruit growers from around the Nashdale, Mudgee and Orange / Mt. Canobolas fruit-growing regions.

What is a class action?

 

A class action is a permitted court action involving 7 or more claimants with substantially similar claims against the same defendant or defendant/s.

What’s the class action about?

 

We will be arguing, amongst other things, that:

  1. Caernarvon breached the Horticultural Code of Conduct which is a mandatory code within the fruit packing and wholesale sector ;
  2. Caernarvon provided misleading and deceptive fruit packing statistics and materially underpaid our assignees – causing loss ;
  3. In addition, Caernarvon overcharged our assignees for packing services, fruit picking services, packaging, transport, fruit handling, storage and /or otherwise.  In some cases, we have seen evidence where, Caernarvon charged our assignee grower up to almost 400 hours of labour in one summer season for the provision of a “person” / alleged staff member – this ‘person’ having no date of birth, no bank account, no tax file number, no superannuation membership, and no address … (the person actually is alleged to reside at the same address as Caernarvon, 474 Canobolas Rd – together with approximately 100 other alleged staff members) ;
  4. Moreover, Caernarvon at the time of the apparent overcharging of our grower assignee, also charged our grower assignee for the services of a “pay mistress”, Ms. Paula Neill formerly of Landseer St, RaglanAround the same time, Ms. Neill pleaded guilty to stealing the sum of $44,864.56 from a local charity known BINC ;
  5. Caernarvon failed to conduct its fruit growing operations in a workmanlike manner.

And in the process, Caernarvon caused our assignee loss and/or damage.

To be clear, we do not accuse Ms. Paula Neil of any criminal offence, however we do say that Caernarvon itself, with some 900 persons on its payroll did engage in misleading and deceptive conduct causing loss to our assignee, and we believe it is highly likely that a number of other fruit growers from the Orange and nearby locality also suffered loss (we have spoken to many).

Moreover, we say that the assignee is entitled to query the veracity of various expenses, which they have, and about which questions still remain outstanding (Caernarvon refusing or neglecting to account or answer questions).

DCP Litigation Holdings are inviting expressions of interest from other growers and suppliers to Caernarvon Cherry, to discuss the claims with potential class action fruit growers and claimants, who have had a similar detrimental financial experience with Caernarvon.  It will be our proposal to fund all litigation costs of all fruit growers accepted against Caernarvon and to share in any settlement payment or judgment of a relevant court.

How big does my claim have to be?

A class-action is ideally suited to large or small growers.
The size of the claim is not important.
The important aspects of the claim is that they are substantially similar to the what we say above that we will be arguing, i.e. they generally involve the supply of fruit from a grower to Caernarvon and some disagreement about entitlements to money (big or small).
The other important factor is that the defendant must be Caernarvon Cherry Pty Ltd of Orange, NSW.

How fruit growers can get involved?

Regardless of how big or small your claim may be, interested parties are asked to complete the below form to express interest.  Once we receive your enquiry we will email you also our class-action FAQ’s.

CCC class action

join
If you have any comments or information about Bernard & Fiona Hall, we’d love to hear from you including any documents via the instant chats below, through the below form or by phone on 1300-327123.

Posted on Leave a comment

DCPLH v Caernarvon Cherry Pty Ltd – service agreement

Biteroit - Caernarvon Cherry

DCPLH is currently undertaking a statement of claim (as at 6 November 2019) in pursuit of an alleged debt owed by Caernarvon Cherry Pty Ltd to it, as assignee.

The claim seeks damages of upto $621,000 plus legal costs.

The matter is in the NSW District Court.

DCPLH has filed this statement of claim in late September 2019 with a defence due by the late November 2019.

DCPLH is also assisting a group of local fruit growers from the Orange District of NSW with preparations for a class-action against Caernarvon.  To view our class-action page – click here.

To view our main Caernarvon Cherry page – click here.

To view our main Hall family page – click here.

If you have any comments or information about Bernard & Fiona Hall, we’d love to hear from you including any documents via the instant chats below, through the below form or by phone on 1300-327123.

 

 

Updated: 6 November 2019.

Posted on 2 Comments

What is a creditors statutory demand?

The Corporations Act 2001 (“the Act”) provides for the conducting of business by a corporation in Australia.

Section 459E of the Act provides that a corporation may be served a statutory demand by a creditor (i.e. a creditor’s statutory demand) relating to (subsection 1):

                     (a)  a single debt that the company owes to the person, that is due and payable and whose amount is at least the statutory minimum; or

                     (b)  2 or more debts that the company owes to the person, that are due and payable and whose amounts total at least the statutory minimum.

 

Once served with such a demand, a company cannot ignore the demand.  The most serious of possible consequences for the company are now rolling out.  There are no friendly rules or casual arrangements, strict compliance with the demand is necessary by law.

Requirements

 

There are further other requirements such as:

             (2)  The demand:

                     (a)  if it relates to a single debt–must specify the debt and its amount; and

                     (b)  if it relates to 2 or more debts–must specify the total of the amounts of the debts; and

                     (c)  must require the company to pay the amount of the debt, or the total of the amounts of the debts, or to secure or compound for that amount or total to the creditor’s reasonable satisfaction, within 21 days after the demand is served on the company; and

                     (d)  must be in writing; and

                     (e)  must be in the prescribed form (if any); and

                      (f)  must be signed by or on behalf of the creditor.

             (3)  Unless the debt, or each of the debts, is a judgment debt, the demand must be accompanied by an affidavit that:

                     (a)  verifies that the debt, or the total of the amounts of the debts, is due and payable by the company; and

                     (b)  complies with the rules.

 

The key words above in each of the subsections are the words Must and AND.

The above requirements of the Act’s provisions are cumulative.  Skip any of the requirements and the consequences for the creditor’s demand is that it is potentially defective.

What happens next

Once a creditor’s statutory demand has been served upon a company, several things can happen:

  1. the recipient company pays the debt in full
  2. the company contacts the creditor and they negotiate a settlement
  3. the company applies to have the demand set aside – for instance if there has been a genuine disputing of the debt.
  4. the company does not respond, and the creditor applies to have it wound up

 

Next steps

If your company has received a creditor’s statutory demand, you have no time to waste.  Go straight to our “what to do next blog for further next steps – click here to book a consultation.

 

 

Call anytime on 1300-327123.

To view related blogs, follow the following category links and tags below.

 

Posted on Leave a comment

Good debt practices

There are a number of healthy things a company can do in the conduct of its affairs.  Some obvious, some not so obvious.

Below is a short checklist of good practice suggestions (in no particular order).

Checklist

 

  1. Not incur debts in the first instance.
  2. Checking invoices and ATO tax office statements carefully – ensuring there are no additional, unapproved items.  Particularly in relation to taxation matters, it is critical that you check these thoroughly!
  3. Disputing unapproved items quickly.  Ideally in writing.  Particularly concerning alleged taxation debts, directors tend to do the opposite.  And, a director under pressure already, often fails to fully read a tax notice of assessment.  (Sometimes they are just plain depressing).  A director must resist the urge to bury the document and should immediately dispute any tax ruling or assessment that they believe is incorrect.  Failing to dispute assessments can have huge consequences later when and if a creditor’s statutory demand has been issued – options become vastly more limited.
  4. Putting everything in writing.  i.e. using email particularly when entering contractual arrangements.  This can provide an important record of the exact agreement.
  5. Confirming discussions in writing by email after discussing things with the other party.  i.e. if one side has made concessions about the debt, the time when due or payable or similar, send an email immediately afterwards confirming what was discussed.  It’s much easier to remember at the time than 2 months later.
  6. Keeping documents and records.  Ideally electronically in an inbox.
  7. Backing up and saving documents and records.  There are many good free or low-cost cloud solutions for storing emails and documents.

If your company needs help arranging its file, contract and legal documentation, or if your company needs to dispute a tax notice of assessment or director’s penalty notice call us for a free consultation or request a quote.

 

Call anytime on 1300-327123.

To view related blogs, follow the following category links and tags below.