Alex Waislitz files defence against ex-wife Heloise Pratt as their court fight escalates

Billionaire Alex Waislitz says his ex-wife failed to involve herself in the affairs of their family business, and called a court case she lodged against him ‘embarrassing’.

Billionaire investor Alex Waislitz.

Billionaire Alex Waislitz says his former wife failed to involve herself in the affairs of their family business and has slammed a court case she lodged against him as “embarrassing”.

Mr Waislitz lodged his defence against Heloise Pratt on Christmas Eve, after she sensationally sued her first husband claiming he engaged in criminality and acted “dishonestly” by paying himself and his charitable foundation $1.147m without her knowledge and approval.

Ms Pratt also accused Mr Waislitz of withholding board documents and financial information from her in relation to the $1.3bn Thorney Investments, which Mr Waislitz runs and which is jointly owned by him and Ms Pratt, and other related companies.

Heloise Pratt is suing her former husband Alex Waislitz. Picture: Getty Images

Ms Pratt is a member of the billionaire Pratt family, which owns the Visy cardboard box making and recycling empire. She and siblings Anthony Pratt and Fiona Geminder are children of the late Richard Pratt.

The allegations date back to 2017 and relate to an entity called Jamahjo that has ownership of the privately held Thorney Investment Group Australia.

Mr Waislitz defended the claims in response to allegations against him in filings lodged with the Victorian Supreme Court on Tuesday, saying the allegation of unlawful means conspiracy is rolled up, embarrassing, inadequately particularised and liable to be struck out.

He described the claim his charitable foundation received $1.147m “by unlawful means” as ­liable to be struck out and that it was embarrassing.

Embarrassing has a legal definition, and means an opposing party has not clearly stated their case so it can be responded to.

As well, Mr Waislitz said Ms Pratt failed to involve herself in their business affairs.

Alex Waislitz, left, Heloise Pratt, Richard Pratt, Anthony Pratt and Paula Hancock.

“(Mr Waislitz) and Heloise Pratt had an arrangement or understanding whereby Heloise Pratt left to him the management of their family’s commercial and business affairs, including with respect to the distribution of income of the Halex Family Trust,” Mr Waislitz said in his defence.

“Heloise Pratt knew he was managing the family’s commercial and business affairs, including executing documents in connection with those affairs.”

Further Mr Waislitz said at all material times it was “open to Heloise Pratt to involve herself in the affairs of Jamahjo, pay attention to the affairs of Jamahjo, and/or participate in any decisions made by the directors of Jamahjo in its own capacity or in its capacity as trustee of the Halex Family Trust”.

Pratt at the launch of The Big Group in Sydney in September.

“At all material times prior to the commencement of these proceedings, Heloise Pratt failed to involve herself in the affairs of Jamahjo, failed to pay attention to the affairs of Jamahjo and/or elected to not participate in, alternatively acquiesced in not partici­pating in, decisions made by the directors of Jamahjo in its own capacity or in its capacity as trustee of the Halex Family Trust,” the defence papers read.

“(She) failed to involve herself in the affairs of Jamahjo … despite owing Jamahjo duties as a director, including the duty to act with reasonable care and diligence.

“Heloise Pratt has abdicated her responsibilities as a director of Jamahjo. A unanimous decision of the directors of Jamahjo was not required and/or Heloise Pratt has waived her right to seek to enforce any requirement that Jamahjo only make decisions through unanimous resolution of its directors.”

In a further shot at his former wife, Mr Waislitz said there was an “absence of any substantial injustice” to Ms Pratt because in part she had received substantial amounts in her capacity as a ­beneficiary of Pratt Group Holdings, the wealthy family’s trust ­account.

“Further particulars of the amounts Heloise Pratt received from the Second Plaintiff (family trust), and her entitlements as a beneficiary of that trust, will be provided following discovery,” the defence papers said.

In a statement provided to The Australian, Mr Waislitz said he had “always aimed to conduct business with a strong moral compass” and he was “proud of building Thorney, deal by deal and year by year.”

He acknowledged “the initial support of Richard Pratt who provided seed capital of $1.15m, and others who believed in my vision” to establish a funds management business that now has more than $1.3bn of net assets.

Mr Waislitz said the philosophy behind Thorney has not wavered over 30 years, focusing on “deep value opportunities which may require a catalyst for change to improve performance as well as investing in companies that are innovators or disrupters” and providing capital for growth and restructuring to turn around companies Thorney had invested in.

“I have always been prepared to speak out strongly and act against people who I believe are not acting in the interests of all stakeholders,” Mr Waislitz said.

“Likewise, I conduct the Waislitz [charitable] Foundation and my personal life with a clear moral ethos. I have always been prepared to stand up on behalf of my family, my children, my friends and employees against those who are not acting fairly or in our best interests.

“I will not be providing a running commentary on the legal matters that currently concern me. I remain focused on the business of Thorney, as well as my family. These matters will not affect the operations of the Thorney team.”

Originally published as Alex Waislitz files defence against ex-wife Heloise Pratt as their court fight escalates