Western Australian woman Hayley Christidis described her relationship with husband Alexi in “unremarkable terms” before he unexpectedly fled the country, documents from the Supreme Court of Western Australia say.
From her perspective, nothing was amiss before he wiped the memory of his work computer and caught a flight to Dubai in the early hours of 3 August 2025.
You’re out of free articles for this month
In January 2025, Alexi had been clinically diagnosed with depression and bipolar II disorder, but continued working on his winemaking business, took medication and attended appointments with a psychologist, court documents said.
On 3 August, concerned for Alexi’s wellbeing, Hayley filed a missing person’s report with WA police. Days later, police informed her that her husband had been found, but his exact location could not be disclosed for privacy reasons.
Court inquiries noted numerous “suspicious and concerning” circumstances surrounding Alexi’s departure.
Before he left Australia, he transferred over $100,000 out of Chalari, his winemaking business, into cryptocurrency and an international online spending account. He had a second phone and numerous credit cards, one of which was overdue by over $50,000.
In July 2025, their daughter said she observed bundles of $50 notes in the family car after Alexi stopped by a Commonwealth Bank, where Chalari held accounts. Alexi also printed a life insurance policy renewal before he left the country.
The couple had two children, aged 11 and 12. Hayley supported the family as the primary breadwinner through her work as a nurse while Alexi operated his winemaking business.
Hayley, who didn’t have access to or control over the company’s bank accounts, believed that the income from Chalari was being reinvested back into the business to support its growth, according to court documents.
However, the court raised doubts regarding the company’s solvency, as it was in arrears with its rent for the vineyard and sheds it leased.
Furthermore, when the business was incorporated in March 2019, Hayley and Alexi were equal shareholders. In February 2025, Alexi filed to transfer Hayley’s share to his name, making him the sole shareholder.
Hayley told the court that this transfer was done without her knowledge or consent.
She was also listed as a company director from Chalari’s incorporation to 23 November 2022, and then from 1 August 2024 to 10 January 2025.
Hayley claimed that this was also done without her knowledge or consent, adding that she had no qualifications in the wine industry and held no responsibility for the operation of the business.
On 12 August 2025, she made an application with the court to wind up Chalari. The court granted the application, and RSM partners Jerome Mohen and Gregory Dudley were appointed to liquidate the company.
In support of its decision, the court noted that Alexi, the sole director and operator of the company, had fled the jurisdiction and made no arrangements for the ongoing management of Chalari in his absence.
Nobody had access to the company's bank account, Alexi had wiped the memory on the computer used to operate the business and there was no external accountant.
“I have no confidence that [Mr Christidis] has complied with his statutory obligation to keep adequate books and records of Chalari,” the judge said.
The company’s financial situation was difficult to ascertain, given the lack of available records.
Its known assets included various vehicles and stocks of wine worth approximately $200,000. Its liabilities totalled $127,261 including rental arrears, various trade creditors and a $60,000 loan with an ‘unsustainably high interest rate.’
The judge noted that some of the assets of Chalari had been ‘dissipated’ already, compounding doubts regarding the company’s solvency.
“Mr Christidis has taken around $100,000 from the business and moved it through the personal account of him and his wife into liquid assets that he can access overseas. At least some of the assets of Chalari appear to have already been dissipated,” court documents read.
“I have no concern that I would be appointing a provisional liquidator to a solvent company.”
Given the “unique and difficult situation” Hayley found herself in, the judge noted that an undertaking as to damages would not be appropriate.