Craig Simpkin applied for Mackay Ag Developments Pty Ltd to be wound up with $1.4m debt outstanding

A family war is being played out in Queensland courts with one member applying to have a multimillion-dollar company wound up and a court having to appoint an outsider to execute a late father’s will. Read more here.

An external view of the Farleigh Sugar Mill. Picture: Fallon Hudson/Daily Mercury

A family war is being played out in Queensland courts with one member applying to have a multimillion-dollar company wound up and a court having to appoint an outsider to execute a late father’s will.

Craig Simpkin has made an application to the Supreme Court for his family’s company, Mackay Ag Developments Pty Ltd which was registered as a business in 2004, to be wound up.

The matter was mentioned in Rockhampton on November 10 in front of Justice Graeme Crow.

The second and third respondents to the application were Mr Simpkin’s mother, Faye Simpkin, and brother Troy Simpkin, who were represented by Rockhampton barrister Tony Arnold.

The court heard the family were also arguing over Craig and Troy’s father, Reginald John Simpkin’s assets and shares, after his death in May 2022.

Justice Crow said the “extremely detailed” affidavit by Craig Simpkin showed there were difficulties within the “many, many” family entities, with attempts involving solicitors and accountants to “unravel the family affairs which have been conducted through numerous companies, partnerships and trusts and all have not succeeded”.

Justice Graeme Crow. Pic Annette Dew

He said the material showed there was prejudice against all parties in the matter, along with the applicant’s own personal affairs and his inability to finalise a property settlement with his wife which had been hindered “it seems, by this long-ranging family dispute”.

According to dlook.com.au, Craig Simpkin is linked to a business called Simpkin Haulage Company in Pratt Street, Mackay.

He was also mentioned in a paper about mill mud and mud/ash blends in the haulage between Mackay sugar mills.

An external view of the Farleigh Sugar Mill. Picture: Fallon Hudson/Daily Mercury

Justice Crow said the sale of a company asset, a quarry and equipment in 2008 – sold for $3.75 million.

The court heard the company still has a debt on the books worth about $1.4 million.

Justice Crow said the concern of the second and third respondents was that if a liquidator was appointed, it was possible, they would call on the loan which would then have significant adverse effects on a number of family entities, which may affect their value, their ability to trade and severely financially prejudice the second and third defendants.

Craig Simpkin’s lawyer, Michael de Waard, said to order this to a mediation now would be a waste of money and futile as the parties had been to mediation for other issues and there had been no resolutions.

Mr Arnold said the application for winding up the company was “out of the blue”.

He said the three grounds Craig Simpkin made out in his application for being grounds to wind up the company involved serious allegations of conduct of parties in relation to a company and its operation – “that the company has been conducted in a director’s interest as opposed to the interests of the members at whole”.

Mr Arnold said the application material claimed Craig had been excluded from operations within the business but did not provide any particular instances, which legislation requires him to do.

FILE IMAGE: Barrister Tony Arnold.

He said Craig’s affidavit also “opined” the rest of the family was not interested in paying him out his share of the business.

Mr Arnold said there was no deadlock in running the company.

“This is a family company with a debt on the books which has been on the books since 2008,” he said.

“For some 14 years, at no stage, in any of the material does Mr Simpkin, the applicant, call a meeting, agitate, send correspondence, or indeed, complain the company has been run in any other way than it should have been run.

“The company has been functioning for all these years and he’s (Craig) done nothing at all in relation to debt.

“We need to know the case made out against us.”

Mr Arnold told the court the family were waiting to find out who will get the shares that had belonged to Reginald John Simpkin.

He said it may be the case that the accountant determines it was in the best interest of everyone not to call in the $1.4 million debt.

“It’s a lot of money,” Mr Arnold said.

“It’s a serious remedy.

“There’s not the evidence there to support it.

“We want it heard fairly and justly.”

Mr Ward said this hadn’t come out of the blue and was “starting to affect other people”.

“These parties have had significant business dealings that are intermingled between the various family members for many years,” Mr de Waard said.

“It surely is not in dispute on everybody’s evidence that there has been an irretrievable falling out and breakdown of the relationship between these people.

“These parties are at complete and utter war.

“And they are not at war on just one front.

“There are multiple fronts.

“It’s so bad between these parties … that the siblings who were the executives of their late father’s estate, couldn’t agree on anything.

“We had (recently) turned up to the Supreme Court in front of Justice (Glenn) Martin to appoint an administrator just to oversee the estate.

“These people clearly, frankly, hate each other.”

Mr de Waard said he would make the concession the particulars are lacking to a degree.

Justice Crow said the proposal to wind up the company was only one part of this family’s wars and “steps taken by the liquidator may have a cascading effect … will definitely have a cascading effect with the other family entities”.

He determined the matter needs to go to a hearing, which Mr Arnold said if it were to proceed before Christmas, it would be rushed and may be counter-productive.

Justice Crow in setting down dates and directions said, “Hopefully the guns will be put down over Christmas in this war”.

The hearing has been set down for two days starting on February 2, 2023, in the Supreme Court at Rockhampton.