The estranged wife of a blue-collar business boss whose staff demonstrated in extraordinary scenes outside the family court in Sydney claims her ex-husband rounded up the boys to intimidate him.
Plus, the woman involved in the bitter divorce split insists she paid the bills while her Fendi-wearing ex wasted money living the high life.
The ex-wife of the business manager did not appear at the family court on Monday after being warned that it was the scene of a large gathering of her colleagues in high visibility outfits, “clearly there to intimidate him.”
“What happened yesterday was an act of intimidation and bullying,” the woman’s legal aid person told Daily Mail Australia, adding that they had stayed away from the audience planned for fear of having to take on the challenge from the men of the company.
The ex-wife of the blue-collar boss (pictured, with his second wife) whose staff protested outside the family court on Monday said her estranged husband rounded up the boys to “intimidate and intimidate” her.
The court heard on Monday that the family court proceedings threatened the business with possible liquidation and the men’s jobs, with the husband’s lawyer blaming “the wife”.
But the wife’s support representative said “it must be clear that the husband must be fully responsible for his staff and affairs” and that the man – who the court heard had borrowed 1.7 million dollars – was spending a lot.
“He recently got married (to his second wife) in a lavish wedding with no expense spared.
“I find it hilarious how he can make it seem like (someone) in such dire financial straits would be dressed head to toe in Fendi.”
The friend claimed the wife “was responsible for paying their son’s school fees while the husband lived the high life…and carried on as if there were no problems.”
She “never wanted the company to be involved” and “the husband needs to take responsibility for his actions and close this chapter once and for all.”
It is unclear when the marriage began, but court records reveal the wife took out an apprehended violence order against her ex-husband in 2014.
The fight between the two sides came to a head when dozens of employees gathered in front of the court entrance, in the city’s CBD, as the hearing was due to begin.
The entire staff of a company gathered in front of the family court on Monday to support the bitter battle that their boss is waging with his ex-wife.
Passersby watched curiously as the men displayed their company logos in a show of force on the sidewalk near the extremely private and security-conscious court complex.
Denying the group was leading a protest, one of the men told Daily Mail Australia: “We don’t have any signs or banners, we’re just here to show our support for the boss.”
At the midday hearing before a family court judge, the husband’s lawyer claimed that the company boss was “trying to keep the company afloat, to keep the employees working” and blamed “the ‘marries’ the threat of liquidation of the company.
Staff dressed in high-visibility jackets crowded around the entrance to the Australian Family Court, mindful of their privacy and security, in Goulburn Street.
He said the wife had issued an injunction on one of the company’s properties “to prevent its sale… which would place the current business in financial jeopardy.”
The court was told: “The husband is the person who runs the day-to-day operations.
“The wife is looking to remove it and install a professional (receiver).”
“The husband has significant contacts with third parties, personal relationships. Things may never be the same again.
However, the wife’s lawyer argued there had been a loss of financial credibility of the company, cash flow problems and an unpaid tax bill of almost half a million dollars.
He said his wife was still waiting for information “on the current financial situation of the group”.
The court heard the company had current liabilities of more than $11 million and debts of $8 million.
While the men made their show of force outside, inside, the boss’s lawyer claimed he was “trying to keep the company afloat, to keep the employees working.”
The judge was “far from convinced” by the husband’s argument and questioned his objections to installing a receiver.
The judge said that if financial remedies were not applied, “it is not a receiver who will be appointed, it is a liquidator”.
The judge said the manner in which the financial and other documents were presented to the court was “simply extraordinary”.
The judge also questioned the fact that the husband had borrowed $1.7 million to maintain the liquidity of the business, and said that the management of the appointment of a receiver “is entirely in (the) hands husband). (He) must accept what he has created.”
“The husband did his best to try to save this company, its employees and its stakeholders,” the lawyers said.
The affair continues. None of the parties involved in this story could be identified for legal reasons.