The liquidators of the failed Kleenmaid Appliance group has successfully applied to have two cars, a Lexus and an Audi allegedly owned by the wife of the former MD of Kleenmaid seized after a judge was not convinced that Linda Young owned the luxury cars.
The liquidators of the failed Kleenmaid Appliance group has successfully applied to have two cars, a Lexus and an Audi allegedly owned by the wife of the former MD of Kleenmaid seized after a judge was not convinced that Linda Young owned the luxury cars.
Lawyers acting on behalf of Kleenmaid liquidator Deloitte convinced Justice Applegarth sitting in the Queensland Supreme Court to issue orders for Ms Young to return the vehicles to the liquidators before August 31. She was also ordered to pay $10,000 in legal costs to the liquidators.
THE wife of former Kleenmaid director Andrew Young was also denied further time to establish her claim that she owned the cars and not the Kleenmaid group.
Earlier this year Kleenmaid was placed into liquidation with debts of over $100 million dollars.
Andrew Young and his brother Brad Young were the sole directors of the failed Company.
Lawyers for Linda Young argued the luxury vehicles were on the asset register of a Company called Orchard KM – which was part of the Kleenmaid group when it went into voluntary administration.
The layers claimed that Ms Young had shares in Orchard KM and that Kleenmaid had legally sold her the vehicles, which were now registered under her name.
Lawyer for liquidator Deloitte, Vince Brennan, told the court that Linda Young had failed on several occasions to present any evidence that the vehicles had been legally transferred to Orchard KM.
According to Fairfax media in Queensland Ms Young’s lawyer sought to have the matter adjourned to give Ms Young more time to give evidence before the court. However Justice Peter Applegarth denied the application saying she had already had plenty of time.
“The respondent, whilst making assertions through solicitor correspondence, has not placed evidence before the courts,” Justice Applegarth said.”Mere assertion the respondent is the owner is not enough.”
