Company A - has a Wholesale Agreement from the Australian Licensee of a Product. Company A is a registered Company with two directors Mr X and Ms Z and they each own 50% of the business.
Mr X and Ms Z went about setting up a Business that sold an exclusive product. Ms Z had been in a similar business overseas and when Mr X heard about her knowledge, and did his homework on the product he felt that it was a very lucrative business to get involved in. But without the expertise of Ms Z it would be impossible for him to figure out what to do next.
So, to get Ms Z to help him Mr X invited her to become a 50/50 partner. He was happy to invest 100% of the money in the business for stock and that was the scope of his input until later when he makes a few sales of the product that they had the Wholesale rights to sell.
Ms Z has at the behest of Mr X built a website with shopping cart of over 90 pages. She has also done the all the graphics etc for the business stationary, advertising, media placement, SEO etc for the website and administered the business from her home office. She has purchased from her own money software to keep the book and even submitted the BAS etc to the ATO. She has used and paid for many resources that the business has used and spent 6 months working exclusively for the business with no financial compensation because Mr X promised her that once the business started to operate and money was coming in from sales she would be guaranteed at least $1000 per week as a 50% Owner.
6 months have gone by and a few sales have been made, there is over $30k in the business bank account and one day, Mr X decides to raid the account and transfer the money to another of his business interests. (Company B)
He then accuses Ms Z of being untrustworthy and makes that his excuse for transferring the money which was proceeds of sales from the business of Company A. He also states that he wants out of the business partnership.
Ms Z is only too happy to finish the business relationship... and tells Mr X that he needs to make a settlement for the work and time that Ms Z has contributed to the business. Ms Z says to Mr X, that she had an agreement with Mr X in Company A and she wants compensation for all the work she has done for the business (during this time she has exclusively worked for Company A) Mr X was demanding of her time which meant she had no time to do anything else and she had let her own business run down as the business with Company A, could have been a lucrative business.
Mr X promises payment of $20k to Ms Z for the website. But it is the belief of Ms Z that he only said this in order to get all of the stock that was in her possession back. Ms Z threatened Mr Z that she would retain some stock to the value of the money she was promised until she was paid.
A few days later Mr X goes to a solicitor and started legal proceedings, but the legal proceedings are being drawn up with Company B as the Plaintiff. Company B has had nothing to do with this business from the start.
In between Ms Z having received a letter of demand from the solicitor, thought that it would be easier to just take the loss and give back all the stock to Mr X so she arranged for him to pick up the stock.
Mr X, said that he had not received all the stock and continued in his legal action.
In regard to the legal action Mr X has instructed his solicitor and the court that Company B owns the stock. Ms Z believes that this is wrong... but it seems that no matter how many times she has told the solicitor that the stock belongs to Company A, he still wants to continue with Company B as the Plaintiff.
The stock cost $18k but Mr X has no paperwork that can substantiate his claim. He is going on memory and there is no paper trail. At this point it is a situation of his word against hers. He has also told the Solicitor to get the full retail value of the stock. $38k to date there have been three different figures given to Ms Z as to the value of the goods.
Ms Z has all the necessary evidence to show that Company A is the legal owner of the stock. She has said in her defence statement that she doesn't have the stock and that it was a threat she made, but after the escalation to a legal situation she thought better of the threat and gave the stock back. But the Solicitor doesn't seem to read English and has 'deemed everything as admitted'. He has also negated the counterclaim stating that it doesn't articulate a claim against the Plaintiff.
It is obvious that the solicitor is being told a pack of porkies and Ms Z doesn't know what to do anymore. She wants her day in court, but this last Answer from the plaintiff (which should have been submitted 14 days after the filing of the defense and counterclaim) came 6 weeks later, well outside the time limits
The Plaintiff has done nothing confuse the situation with the fact that they have shifted Company A's assets to Company B so to enhance their fraudulent claim and to negate the claim of Ms Z for compensation for her part in setting up the business which is ongoing.
Any thoughts??
Note: This situation has left Ms Z in debt and unable to pay for any legal help. Legal aid won't help, and no solicitor will work on a no win no fee... (She is being sued for $38k (retail price of the stock) Her counter claim is for $70k which is a reasonable price for her services over the 6 months)
Mr X and Ms Z went about setting up a Business that sold an exclusive product. Ms Z had been in a similar business overseas and when Mr X heard about her knowledge, and did his homework on the product he felt that it was a very lucrative business to get involved in. But without the expertise of Ms Z it would be impossible for him to figure out what to do next.
So, to get Ms Z to help him Mr X invited her to become a 50/50 partner. He was happy to invest 100% of the money in the business for stock and that was the scope of his input until later when he makes a few sales of the product that they had the Wholesale rights to sell.
Ms Z has at the behest of Mr X built a website with shopping cart of over 90 pages. She has also done the all the graphics etc for the business stationary, advertising, media placement, SEO etc for the website and administered the business from her home office. She has purchased from her own money software to keep the book and even submitted the BAS etc to the ATO. She has used and paid for many resources that the business has used and spent 6 months working exclusively for the business with no financial compensation because Mr X promised her that once the business started to operate and money was coming in from sales she would be guaranteed at least $1000 per week as a 50% Owner.
6 months have gone by and a few sales have been made, there is over $30k in the business bank account and one day, Mr X decides to raid the account and transfer the money to another of his business interests. (Company B)
He then accuses Ms Z of being untrustworthy and makes that his excuse for transferring the money which was proceeds of sales from the business of Company A. He also states that he wants out of the business partnership.
Ms Z is only too happy to finish the business relationship... and tells Mr X that he needs to make a settlement for the work and time that Ms Z has contributed to the business. Ms Z says to Mr X, that she had an agreement with Mr X in Company A and she wants compensation for all the work she has done for the business (during this time she has exclusively worked for Company A) Mr X was demanding of her time which meant she had no time to do anything else and she had let her own business run down as the business with Company A, could have been a lucrative business.
Mr X promises payment of $20k to Ms Z for the website. But it is the belief of Ms Z that he only said this in order to get all of the stock that was in her possession back. Ms Z threatened Mr Z that she would retain some stock to the value of the money she was promised until she was paid.
A few days later Mr X goes to a solicitor and started legal proceedings, but the legal proceedings are being drawn up with Company B as the Plaintiff. Company B has had nothing to do with this business from the start.
In between Ms Z having received a letter of demand from the solicitor, thought that it would be easier to just take the loss and give back all the stock to Mr X so she arranged for him to pick up the stock.
Mr X, said that he had not received all the stock and continued in his legal action.
In regard to the legal action Mr X has instructed his solicitor and the court that Company B owns the stock. Ms Z believes that this is wrong... but it seems that no matter how many times she has told the solicitor that the stock belongs to Company A, he still wants to continue with Company B as the Plaintiff.
The stock cost $18k but Mr X has no paperwork that can substantiate his claim. He is going on memory and there is no paper trail. At this point it is a situation of his word against hers. He has also told the Solicitor to get the full retail value of the stock. $38k to date there have been three different figures given to Ms Z as to the value of the goods.
Ms Z has all the necessary evidence to show that Company A is the legal owner of the stock. She has said in her defence statement that she doesn't have the stock and that it was a threat she made, but after the escalation to a legal situation she thought better of the threat and gave the stock back. But the Solicitor doesn't seem to read English and has 'deemed everything as admitted'. He has also negated the counterclaim stating that it doesn't articulate a claim against the Plaintiff.
It is obvious that the solicitor is being told a pack of porkies and Ms Z doesn't know what to do anymore. She wants her day in court, but this last Answer from the plaintiff (which should have been submitted 14 days after the filing of the defense and counterclaim) came 6 weeks later, well outside the time limits
The Plaintiff has done nothing confuse the situation with the fact that they have shifted Company A's assets to Company B so to enhance their fraudulent claim and to negate the claim of Ms Z for compensation for her part in setting up the business which is ongoing.
Any thoughts??
Note: This situation has left Ms Z in debt and unable to pay for any legal help. Legal aid won't help, and no solicitor will work on a no win no fee... (She is being sued for $38k (retail price of the stock) Her counter claim is for $70k which is a reasonable price for her services over the 6 months)
