iscover Criticisms made of company director amid winding up application
BusinessThe Federal Court has terminated the winding up of a logistics company despite being critical of the director’s behaviour.
Justice Nicholas Owens has terminated the winding up of NSW transport and logistics company, IAZ Logistics, on the basis that its director, Daniel Spyrou, has the funds to ensure all debts to creditors are paid in full.
In addition to the $200,000 already available at the company, Spyrou committed an addition $792,000 of his own cash, which has already been paid into his lawyer’s trust account.
The court was told Spyrou was aware of the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation’s application to wind up the company but was assured by his accountant “that there was nothing to worry about”.
While the “precise reason” why the accountant took the view was not available on the evidence, Justice Owens said it was sufficient to observe the case was not put on the basis that the winding up order was obtained through a fundamental irregularity.
In his written reasons for judgment, published on Christmas Eve, Justice Owens raised other concerns about Spyrou’s conduct.
This included an email from his solicitor to the company’s creditors that gave them just two days’ notice of the application.
While Spyrou’s submission that the application was urgent was accepted, Justice Owens said this did not “provide any justification for depriving other persons whose interests may be affected of a proper opportunity to consider their position and take advice”.
The position was made worse by the fact that Spyrou had an employee of IAZ Logistics send another email to the creditors. It was done so in a way that purported the email was sent by the company.
Justice Owens said it was “plainly wrong” to suggest the application was being brought by the company itself.
“It is difficult to know whether that misrepresentation was likely to cause the recipients to believe that the email was sent with the authority and approval of the liquidators,” Justice Owens noted.
The second email asked the creditors to provide a letter detailing their opposition to the winding up application and cautioned that they would only receive the full amount of their debts if they did so.
“If the liquidator remains in control of the company, it is likely that you will not be paid in full, often it is not even 50% of the amount you are owed. In fact, we cannot guarantee they will even pay you at all as they pay their costs first then the remaining creditors in the order they deem a priority,” the email read.
Justice Owens said there was “no basis for such representations”.
“Overall, therefore, I was left with a significant degree of discomfort as to the basis upon which the views of creditors had been sought.
“They were given insufficient notice, and their attitude was sought to be influenced by a quite misleading and tendentious communication sent at the direction of the plaintiff,” Justice Owens said.
On this basis, Justice Owens could not find that the creditors positively supported the application.
Spyrou also failed to adduce appropriate evidence, including an evidentiary foundation to establish the company’s solvency.
“The plaintiff took a significant risk by choosing to prioritise the urgent hearing of his application over the proper and careful preparation and presentation of it.
“That is not a course to be encouraged,” Justice Owens said.
The case: Spyrou v Thorn, in the matter of IAZ Logistics Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 1685.
