Reseller News

Developer, liquidator win $512K judgement in Convendium stoush

Parallel cases are being argued in the High Court, but liquidator can still recover moneys owed

The founders of a failed cardless payment technology developer have lost a legal battle against the company's liquidator and its software developer.

A High Court judgment against founders Paul Monnery, Julie Monnery and David Griffiths, ruled software developer Sandfield Associates and the liquidators of Convendium could proceed to recover sums owing by the defendants and a related family trust, despite other pending legal action.

"The point I have reached now is that the company has proved the debt at least to the sum of $512,346," associate judge R. M. Bell found. 

"The matters that Mr Monnery has raised by way of defence do not, in my judgement, bar the company from obtaining recovery from the trustees of the P and J Monnery Family Trust."

Those other matters relate to a dispute over the ownership of venture and its assets, with Monnery et al arguing fellow investors and shareholders had intentionally caused the plaintiffs economic harm by unlawful means and were complicit in a conspiracy to injure their interests.

That case is continuing, but the the new judgment allows the liquidator and Sandfield recovery.

Convendium was incorporated in 2005 to develop cashless payment systems used in vending machines such as drink and snack dispensers and for washing machines in laundromats. 

The judgment says that when the company was established, the defendants injected funds into the company by way of shareholders’ advances. 

Over time, those advances were repaid and the shareholders continued to receive drawings from the company, which has put them in debt to it.

Developer Sandfield Associates is also creditor of Convendium and was the applicant that put the company into liquidation.

It licensed Convendium to use its software, called the Festival Payments system, and argued it was owed $339,000.

Monnery and company argued the drawings were in lieu of salary but the judge sided with the applicants.