Allen Caratti’s partner Tina Bazzo has failed in her bid to overturn court orders over legal actions liquidators have brought against her.
Allen Caratti’s partner Tina Bazzo has failed in her bid to overturn court orders over legal actions liquidators have brought against her.
Liquidators of development company GH1 and other companies related to Mr Caratti and his de facto partner commenced legal actions against Ms Bazzo in the WA Supreme Court in 2021.
The liquidators estimated the entities’ liabilities to be more than $310 million with about $150 million of that claimed by the Australian Tax Office.
The validity of the writs was due to expire in October 2022 but the Supreme Court Master granted the liquidators and extension until 2023.
The writs were served on Ms Bazzo within the deadline, according to a recent Supreme Court judgment.
Ms Bazzo applied to set aside the Master’s orders which extended the writs.
In the judgment, Ms Bazzo claimed the relevant events took place nine years ago and on top of her medical condition, the continued validity of the writs would prejudice her.
Her application to set aside the orders was opposed by the liquidators, who alleged Ms Bazzo breached her duties to GH1 while she was a director at the company.
WA Supreme Court Justice Marcus Solomon dismissed Ms Bazzo’s application to set aside the master’s orders, handing down his judgment earlier this week.
“The delay from the time the writs were issued until the communications in August 2022 was certainly significant,” he said.
“But again, that is to be considered against the developing and ongoing complexity of the proceedings and yet the necessity to issue them by the court's extended deadline.
“In the explanation provided to the Master in October 2022, funding issues and ongoing negotiations were advanced as principal justifications. It may be accepted that such factors are not ordinarily persuasive.
“In this matter, however, the inevitable scale and cost of the proceedings shed a different light on those considerations.
“The breadth and complexity of the investigations, the challenges of funding and the pressing desirability of a mediated outcome were of an order of magnitude that differed from the circumstances to which the legislative regime is more commonly directed.
“In my assessment, those amounts would likely be dwarfed by the expenditure required to prosecute the proceedings.”
Despite finding that there was prejudice to Ms Bazzo and other defendants to the action, Justice Solomon found there would inevitably be delays in liquidations of this scale.
“The delay has been exacerbated to some extent by the defendants themselves,” he said in his judgment.
“There is little evidence that material documents or witnesses are no longer available. In addition, I accept the submission that it is appropriate to consider the prejudice to creditors should the proceedings be brought to an end.”
