NSW Supreme Court finds against Chilli

Can't find the right forum, then post your general surf-related remarks here!

Moderators: Butts, beach_defender, Shari, collnarra, Forum Moderators

Hollowed out
regular
Posts: 302
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 4:36 pm

NSW Supreme Court finds against Chilli

Post by Hollowed out » Tue Mar 27, 2012 9:49 pm

After a long and ugly court battle it would appear from reading the attached judgement, that James Cheal (Chilli Surfboards) has been pansed by his ex who worked beside him and built the business, with James found guilty of oppressive conduct and other nasty breaches of law and will pay dearly for his actions.
Seems, from a general reading of the judgement that another well known Queensie surfer/accountant Scott Jago, who advised Chilli, didn't exactly impress the judge and copped a serve for his part in the whole scheme.
And, it appears it ain't over yet as to the amount he will have to pay out and if that includes costs of the case, which would have to be in the $hundreds of thousands after years of litigation.
Ah well, what goes around comes around...Chilli and China have a certain ring

Hollowed out
regular
Posts: 302
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 4:36 pm

Re: NSW Supreme Court finds against Chilli

Post by Hollowed out » Tue Mar 27, 2012 9:58 pm

forgot to post the Chilli court case link...

http://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/action/PJ ... tid=157566

User avatar
jimmy
Owl status
Posts: 3701
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 12:12 pm

Re: NSW Supreme Court finds against Chilli

Post by jimmy » Tue Mar 27, 2012 10:16 pm

Yeah I read about that in the latest issue of ASL. :P :P
Hatchnam wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 1:13 pm
How about tame down the scatter gun must consecutively post on every thread behaviour you compulsive mongoloid.
swvic wrote:
Mon Feb 01, 2021 11:54 pm
Actually, that’s interesting. Take note, beanpole

User avatar
daryl
Huey's Right Hand
Posts: 20809
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 6:23 pm
Contact:

Re: NSW Supreme Court finds against Chilli

Post by daryl » Wed Mar 28, 2012 7:52 am

hard to read, but going by the statements about his literate incompetencies,
acknowledged educational limitations, it is not surprising then that ****assisted **** in the administrative aspects of the running of the **** business from its incorporation, in particular assisting in relation to the paperwork of the business (that seems to have been attended to in an office in their home at least for some part of the initial years of the
yes, the lady judge, lady attorney, and the de-facto well and truly pansed, set him up so why did he have a male attorney, groan.

Hollowed out
regular
Posts: 302
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 4:36 pm

Re: NSW Supreme Court finds against Chilli

Post by Hollowed out » Wed Mar 28, 2012 10:38 am

I think you may have read it wrong dayrl..he did have a lady barrister, Ms Francious...who was the one running the case for the chick who went the $37 mill case against DJ's and only got $850k..so can't be said James got done by sexism...more like got done trying to pull a swiftie hiding assets on his ex partner/shareholder while playing hide the sausage in another bush.
Maybe his daliance with the FCS Mac Bankers in selling them part of his Eskimo foam business and getting into bed with them around that same time twisted his perception of what was real and with all that blood rushing around and big boys hubris, 'ol knobby took control of the grey matter

buzzy
barnacle
Posts: 1062
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:41 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: NSW Supreme Court finds against Chilli

Post by buzzy » Wed Mar 28, 2012 12:12 pm

If Chilli had simply resigned as a director of Chilli 1 the whole problem may never have arisen. The license to use the Chilli trademark has little value without the backing of James Cheal's reputation, and once he had resigned as director he would be under no obligation to continue the license to use it to Chilli 1.

Not that I've read the whole judgement mind you.

Hollowed out
regular
Posts: 302
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 4:36 pm

Re: NSW Supreme Court finds against Chilli

Post by Hollowed out » Wed Mar 28, 2012 1:37 pm

might have a point there buzzy but it is pretty dense reading and the way I read it is that if there was nothing to hide he would have done that but this case has been alive and been before another judge some years back and I think there was a bit more ugly stuff about how he did it that came out then and led to further case being brought by his ex.
From what I have heard his ex played a pretty big part in him having success and although he was the shaper it is obvious by reading this , he aint no business man and she was the part of the team that he relied on to run things and that is why she had a case and won, because she was oppressed.
Seems to me dollars, ego and testosterone have played their part

RichQ
regular
Posts: 209
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:04 pm

Re: NSW Supreme Court finds against Chilli

Post by RichQ » Thu Mar 29, 2012 7:47 am

As ye sew, so shall ye reap! (in olde English font)
Ask ex partner Taylor Eaton how he feels
About it all... ask ex glasser Cameron
Morris what he thinks about it.... Ask, well
..... You get the picture. Here's one for you
"mate"... :lol:

Hollowed out
regular
Posts: 302
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 4:36 pm

Re: NSW Supreme Court finds against Chilli

Post by Hollowed out » Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:13 am

spot on about reaping what you sew RichQ but it would appear from reading paragraph 55 of the judgement Taylor Eaton is a co-director in Chilli #2 along with James Cheal. Maybe he is trapped in there and wants out after what has gone down as it reads that Cheal and Jago were very tight at the and forgot who they owed their respective duties to.
Jago looks after the affairs of a huge number of the surfing crew...better them than me from what i read in the Judgement

RichQ
regular
Posts: 209
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:04 pm

Re: NSW Supreme Court finds against Chilli

Post by RichQ » Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:38 am

The firmJago works for were my accountants for a couple of
Years until I worked out that they were charging a lot of money
for very little work. Scott was handling my account , he would
Actually yawn in our meetings! Taylor is a good kid who worked his
arse off for Chilli but got shafted .Wait a minute.... Tayls... Are you
Hollowed out!!??

Hollowed out
regular
Posts: 302
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 4:36 pm

Re: NSW Supreme Court finds against Chilli

Post by Hollowed out » Thu Mar 29, 2012 10:30 am

RichQ...nah not him buti can see why you asked the question.

Sounds like you were tight in the game somewhere and know about the Allan Hall group that Jago works, as do I. Chilli is touted as one of their showcase customers with displays of his boards decorating their Brookvale office foyer. So they are gunna want to sweep all this under the carpet because pretty embarrassing when you read the judgement and good for you on waking up early to what service and advice you where getting was no probably no different to the big firms, they are just money making machines making millions for the partners and staff and clients pay for it.
Interesting that Chilli pleaded as being dyslexic in some form yet the judge still preferred his word over Scot Jago's account of things, what does that tell ya?

User avatar
ric_vidal
Snowy McAllister
Posts: 6287
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2004 4:34 pm

Re: NSW Supreme Court finds against Chilli

Post by ric_vidal » Thu Mar 29, 2012 10:40 am

Hollowed out wrote:Chilli pleaded as being dyslexic in some form
I think Rich would be able to come up with a more apt description. Glad I was on the periphery.

He should be ground into precious white dust.

RichQ
regular
Posts: 209
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:04 pm

Re: NSW Supreme Court finds against Chilli

Post by RichQ » Thu Mar 29, 2012 11:08 am

I bet they took down the Chilli boards quick smart!!
Dyslexia huh? Is that why Brandon Macdonald signs 99% of the boards?
Still trying to get over the whole " Chilli period" in my life.
Trying to vent without being defamatory .

mustkillmulloway
Owl status
Posts: 4962
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 9:15 pm
Location: i live in a pineapple under the sea

Re: NSW Supreme Court finds against Chilli

Post by mustkillmulloway » Thu Mar 29, 2012 11:20 am

jimmy wrote:Yeah I read about that in the latest issue of ASL. :P :P

:lol:

No doubt they left this alone too work on the other massive story of a big producer going bust in the :idea: near future

Nahhhhh....old surf media always last too :roll: know
reginald wrote:Hang on, now all of a sudden I'm the bad guy. How the try again did that happen?

Hollowed out
regular
Posts: 302
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 4:36 pm

Re: NSW Supreme Court finds against Chilli

Post by Hollowed out » Thu Mar 29, 2012 11:40 am

Vent away Rich, on the basis of staying within the realms of what was exposed in both judgements as that is on the public record as a judicial finding.
Here is a link to the first case which led to this recent case.

Fitzpatrick v Cheal [2010] NSWSC 717 (1 July 2010)
Seems that Chilli and Simone were de facto for about 13 years and Simone was friends back in 2003 with the Chilli's new "lady" who he married in 2004 and went about stting up new companies without even telling Simone....nice bloke. Wonder what the women pro surfers who ride his boards would think if they knew how he acted?
Those involved in this are doing their best to keep it quiet and we know why but if not exposed within our own surfing circles and held accountable by peers, then they will just continue on their way with the next poor victim who thinks the sunshines out their arses.
Good on Simone for having the guts and determination to make a stand and take them on (I say them because..well read the judgement to get my point) and hate to know how much she spent in legals, which hopefully she will recover most back.
As ric-vidal says, grinding into white powder would be justified

RichQ
regular
Posts: 209
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:04 pm

Re: NSW Supreme Court finds against Chilli

Post by RichQ » Thu Mar 29, 2012 12:26 pm

White dust.... Ironic.

User avatar
ric_vidal
Snowy McAllister
Posts: 6287
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2004 4:34 pm

Re: NSW Supreme Court finds against Chilli

Post by ric_vidal » Thu Mar 29, 2012 12:49 pm

RichQ wrote:White dust.... Ironic.
no, intentional

User avatar
daryl
Huey's Right Hand
Posts: 20809
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 6:23 pm
Contact:

Re: NSW Supreme Court finds against Chilli

Post by daryl » Thu Mar 29, 2012 1:23 pm

RichQ wrote:I bet they took down the Chilli boards quick smart!!
Dyslexia huh? Is that why Brandon Macdonald signs 99% of the boards?
Still trying to get over the whole " Chilli period" in my life.
Trying to vent without being defamatory .
Dyslexic was my supervisors excuse too, last week even admitted that maybe they could've helped when they were meant to. Better late than never, last minute offer of corrections underway as we speak.

RichQ made me the best board ever, lucky oh so lucky!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm treasuring it, had to repair a few scratches, white powder eh, like Qcell...

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests