THE PURPOSE OF THIS ASSESMENT:

EXAMINING COURTS AND RIGHTS IN AUSTRALIAN LEGAL

SYSTEM :

( A case study of Golce and Habanna v. Alexander couture Pty Ltd.)

ASSESMENT REPORT

Name : Aayusha Paudel

Email: aayushapaudel1@gmail.com
Course : Law and Business
Date : 17th June, 2023
TABLE OF CONTENTS :

1.Introduction

2.Case Scenario

3.Analysis and Recommendations

4.Drafting a Solicitor's Letter of Demand to Alexander

5.Selection of Court for Litigation

6.Effective Enforcement Options for Recovering Funds

7.Potential Actions against Alexander's Directors under the Cor-

porations Act 2001 (Cth)

8.Conclusion

9.References

Aayusha Paudel
Smith & Co Lawyers
Sydney CBD
17th June , 2023

RE: OUTSTANDING PAYMENT DEMAND AND BREACH OF CONTRACT.

I write on behalf of my client, Golce & Habbana, in relation to the outstanding payment of
$850,000 for the couture fashion items supplied to Alexander Couture Pty Ltd ("Alexan-
der"). Despite multiple requests for payment, Alexander has failed to settle the outstanding
invoice within the agreed-upon timeframe of 7 days from the supply date, which was due on
1 JANUARY 2022.

Our client has fulfilled their obligations under the agreement by supplying the aforemen-
tioned products in good faith. However, the non-payment by Alexander has resulted in sig-
nificant financial strain and has caused our client undue hardship.

We hereby demand immediate payment of the outstanding amount of $850,000. This pay-
ment must be made in full within 14 days from the date of this letter. Failure to comply with
this demand may result in further legal action being taken against Alexander, including but
not limited to commencing legal proceedings to recover the debt.

Please note that our client is open to resolving this matter amicably and is willing to con-
sider alternative payment arrangements if proposed by Alexander within the specified time-
frame. We strongly advise Alexander to seek legal advice and act promptly to avoid any fur-
ther legal consequences.

10.In the event that the matter proceeds to litigation, advise Golce and Habbana on the
Court in which to commence proceedings and why?

If the matter proceeds to litigation, Golce and Habbana should consider commencing pro-
ceedings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The Supreme Court is the highest
court in the state and has jurisdiction to hear civil matters involving disputes exceeding a
specified monetary threshold, which is typically above $750,000.

In this case, the outstanding amount is $850,000, which exceeds the threshold for the lower
courts, such as the Local Court or District Court. Commencing proceedings in the Supreme
Court provides several advantages, including access to experienced judges, comprehensive
procedures for handling complex
commercial disputes, and the ability to seek equitable remedies, if necessary.

11.In the event that Golce and Habbana is successful in obtaining a judgment against
Alexander, advise them on the most effective enforcement options to recover the funds
and why?
Once Golce and Habbana obtain a judgment against Alexander, they can pursue various en-
forcement options to recover the funds. The most effective enforcement options in this sce-
nario may include:

a) Writ for the Levy of Property: Golce and Habbana can obtain a writ for the levy of
property, allowing them to seize and sell Alexander's assets to satisfy the debt. Given
that Alexander owns several properties and assets, this enforcement option can be effec-
tive in recovering the funds.

b) Garnishee Order: Golce and Habbana can seek a garnishee order to redirect funds owed
to Alexander by third parties, such as clients or suppliers. This order allows the redirection
of funds directly to Golce and Habbana to satisfy the judgment debt.

c) Examination Summons: Golce and Habbana can issue an examination summons, com-
pelling the directors of Alexander to appear in court and provide information about the com-
pany's financial position and assets. This can help identify any undisclosed assets or poten-
tial means of recovering the funds.

12.Discuss whether you can take any action against any of the directors of Alexander and
on what basis. You should include a reference to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). 1
Under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), Golce and Habbana may be able to take action
against the directors of Alexander if they have breached their duties. The following potential
breaches may be relevant in this scenario:

a) Breach of Duty to Act in Good Faith and for a Proper Purpose: If the director, Tina Pur-
cell, has been using company funds to support her lavish lifestyle, including purchasing
luxury assets, it may be considered a breach of her duty to act in good faith and for a
proper purpose.

b) Breach of Duty to Prevent Insolvent Trading: If there is suspicion that Alexander has
been unable to pay its bills as they fall due for at least the past six months, the directors may
have breached their duty to prevent insolvent trading. They have an obligation to prevent the
company from incurring debts while insolvent.

If Golce and Habbana can provide evidence of such breaches, they may seek remedies under
the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) , which may include compensation, injunctions, or even di-
rector disqualification.

It is essential for Golce and Habbana to consult with legal counsel specializing in corporate
law to assess the specific circumstances and determine the viability of taking action against
the directors.

1
REFERENCE:

1.Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)

2. Gibson, A (2017). Business law. (10th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

3.Graw, S. (2017). Understanding business law. (8th ed.). New York: Lexis-
Nexis.
4. Latimer,P. (2016). Australian business law. (35th ed.). Oxford: Oxford
University Press. Lipton, P., Herzberg, A. & Welsh, M. (2018).
5. Understanding company law. (19th ed.). Pyrmont: Thomson Reuter.
Miles, C., & Dowler, W. (2015). A guide to business law. (21st ed.). Pyr-
mont: Thomson Reuters.