Sally’s Zou’s lawyers claim court case over cherries is an ‘abuse of process’ designed to embarrass her in the media
SALLY Zou’s lawyer claims a lawsuit brought against her is an “abuse of process” designed to “have her affairs exposed in the media’’ — while the opposing barrister alleges a signature was forged on documents she tendered to the court.
- Who is Sally Zou, reclusive businesswoman and top Liberal donor
- Why Sally Zou’s company is being sued in this case
- Her company tendered financial documents described as ‘fanciful’
SALLY Zou’s lawyer has claimed a case brought against her over allegations she did not pay for 32 tonnes of cherries is an “abuse of process” designed to “have her affairs exposed in the media’’.
The reclusive Adelaide-based entrepreneur has been defending an attempt to have her company, Aus Food Alliance, wound up because it did not pay Torrens Valley Orchards more than $400,000 for 32 tonnes of cherries.
Aus Food Alliance argues the cherries were not of an acceptable quality.
In court on Friday, Simon Ower, for Ms Zou, argued that Brendon Roberts SC, for Torrens Valley, was aiming to conduct a “royal commission’’ into the financial affairs of Ms Zou with the intent of embarrassing her in the media.
Mr Ower said he was interested in what communication there had been between Torrens Valley and The Advertiser, which has been covering the case.
Judge Graham Dart pointed out that the South Australian court system is not conducted in secret.
“We have free and open courts. There’s no reason why a solicitor can’t speak to the media,” Judge Dart said.
“The media attend this application every time. What is the problem?’’
Mr Ower accused Mr Roberts of “grandstanding’’ for the sake of the media.
He also suggested that materials were being provided to the media.
“In the interim period it appears, from materials that have been printed in The Advertiser, persons associated with the plaintiff have been providing information relating to these proceedings, drawing into question whether in fact these proceedings are an abuse of process,’’ he said.
“Isn’t that a complete red herring in a winding-up?’’ Judge Dart responded
“It’s the dominant purpose, we say, to exert pressure on our client to pay this debt,’’ Mr Ower said.
He later said: “The abuse was, that this proceeding was being used as a stalking horse to embarrass my client ... to have her affairs exposed in the media unnecessarily.’’
Judge Dart said Ms Zou “for better or worse, seems to have a high profile in the media’’.
At the last hearing into the matter, Mr Roberts asked to have the opportunity to cross-examine Ms Zou regarding the solvency of her company, and had expected to have the chance to do that today.
At that hearing, on August 30, Mr Roberts described a financial report provided to the court as “fanciful’’.
A subsequent report was filed with the court today.
Mr Roberts said this report also relied on a lot of assumptions which were “just not verified’’.
“The materials are patently not ... evidence of solvency,’’ he told the court.
Mr Roberts said financial documents tendered included two financial statements which were
purported to have been signed by Ms Zou.
He said he wanted to cross-examine Ms Zou on that issue, and as to whether one of the signatures was a forgery.
“My submission will be that one or other is a forgery,’’ he said.
Mr Ower said there were “extraordinary allegations of forgery’’ being put forward by Mr Roberts. Mr Roberts clarified that he wasn’t arguing that Ms Zou had forged anything, but that one of the signatures might be a forgery.
Judge Dart agreed that it did not seem possible that the two signatures were made by the same person.
“It’s obvious to anybody ... that the signatures are manifestly and obviously completely different,’’ the judge said.
Mr Roberts said an affidavit from Ms Zou filed by her lawyers “fails to address anything that actually matters in this case’’.
Judge Dart replied: “That’s true.’’
He said he did not understand the relevance of a lot of the affidavit evidence.
Mr Roberts said the matter could not “by definition’’ be an abuse of process because Torrens Valley had brought the case with the intent of winding up Aus Food Alliance.
“This is not a stalking horse for some collateral end ... we’re asking your honour to make the order,’’ he said.
Judge Dart said if the company was declared insolvent by the court, successfully arguing the case was an abuse of process would be like “climbing over Mt Everest’’.
The matter will return to court next week, when Ms Zou is expected to take the stand.
cameron.england@news.com.au