Receivers in the Melis­sa Cad­dick case want to inspect 30 pairs of the dead conwoman’s shoes, some of which may be worth up to $12,000, a court has heard.

Michael Hayter, Insol­ven­cy Part­ner and the solic­i­tor act­ing for the receivers, said they were seek­ing access to Ms. Caddick’s sneak­er col­lec­tion, which was being held by her son and Mr. Koletti.

In terms of what is in dis­pute, and I know this is going to sound pet­ty, one of the mat­ters in dis­pute is 30 pairs of sneak­ers which are held by the step­son of Mr. Kolet­ti,” Mr. Hayter said.

I should say they’re not the nor­mal type of sneak­ers that I wear.”

One of the pairs, we’ve ascer­tained that it was pur­chased by Ms Cad­dick from Chris­t­ian Dior. And if in mint con­di­tion has a val­ue of approx­i­mate­ly $12,000. These sneak­ers may have sub­stan­tial value.”

Mr. Hayter told the court that the col­lec­tion was removed from Dover Heights home.

Jus­tice Markovic told Mr Hayter that he should to come to an agree­ment with Mr Koletti’s lawyers to inspect the col­lec­tion to ascer­tain their value.

Mr. Kolet­ti also took sev­er­al of Caddick’s dress­es when he vacat­ed their Dover Heights mar­i­tal home and had hand­ed back all but two, the court heard.

And Mr Hayter told Jus­tice Brigitte Markovic the receivers want­ed to inspect them and if they were of lim­it­ed val­ue, they could remain in Mr Koletti’s possession.

To read the full arti­cle click here

If you would like to repub­lish this arti­cle, it is gen­er­al­ly approved, but pri­or to doing so please con­tact the Mar­ket­ing team at marketing@​swaab.​com.​au. This arti­cle is not legal advice and the views and com­ments are of a gen­er­al nature only. This arti­cle is not to be relied upon in sub­sti­tu­tion for detailed legal advice.

Publications

10 year long stop on build­ing defect claims rein­forced for con­tri­bu­tion claims

The recent deci­sion in For­tius Broad­way No 1 Pty Ltd V ACN 103 211 141 Pty Ltd (for­mer­ly known as Wat­pac Con­struc­tion…

A High­er Evi­den­tiary Bur­den for Work Orders: The Prac­ti­cal Impli­ca­tions of The Own­ers – Stra­ta Plan No 102171 v Ceerose Pty Ltd [2025] NSW­CATCD 137

The deci­sion in The Own­ers – Stra­ta Plan No 102171 v Ceerose Pty Ltd; Zone Q Mil­sons Point Devel­op­ment Pty Ltd v Ceerose…

Impor­tant Work­place Rela­tions Changes Effec­tive 1 July 2026

Employ­ers and employ­ees alike should be aware of impor­tant changes in the work­place rela­tions are­na, effec­tive 1 July 2026. From that date:the…

In the News

Roger Corn­forth Retires Fol­low­ing 45 Years of Dis­tin­guished Legal Practice

Roger’s career has been defined by trust­ed rela­tion­ships, prac­ti­cal advice and an unwa­ver­ing com­mit­ment to his clients. Begin­ning his legal…

Protest group los­es appeal to obtain gov­ern­ment documents

The cas­es — Mudgee Region Health Alliance v Min­is­ter for Finance, Domes­tic Man­u­fac­tur­ing and Gov­ern­ment Pro­cure­ment and Nat­ur­al Resources [2026] NSW­CATAD…

Michael Byrnes is quot­ed in the arti­cle, The PM v work­place stan­dards”, pub­lished in HR Leader on 8 July 2026

Michael Byrnes is quot­ed in the arti­cle, ​“The PM v work­place stan­dards”, pub­lished in HR Leader on 8 July 2026To read the…

Sign up for our Newsletter

*Mandatory information