In Re Australian Builders Group Pty Ltd [2022] VSC 254 the Supreme Court, per Hetyey AsJ, set aside a statutory demand based on a genuine dispute based on the construction of an agreement and default notice but also by a claim of duress.

FACTS

On or around 1 June 2017 Mind, a not-for-profit organisation providing community-managed specialist mental health services entered into an agreement with Australian Win Win Investment Pty Ltd (‘the landlord’) to lease a property located at 691 High Street, Thornbury, Victoria (‘the property’ and ‘the lease’ respectively) for an amount of $130,000 per annum (approximately $10,833.33 per calendar month) [1].

In early May 2018, Mind and ABG entered into a sublease agreement for the property (‘the sublease’). The parties to the sublease agreed that ABG would pay a reduced amount of rent of $121,000 per annum (approximately $10,083.33 per calendar month) [2].

From February 2019, ABG began to fall into arrears & by 15 April 2021, it owed Mind approximately eight months’ rent, totalling $82,279.92 (‘the arrears’). Pursuant to a repayment deed, ABG agreed to make regular payments of the arrears of $2,500 plus GST, together with interest, per week.

Regarding the repayment Read the rest of this entry »

The Federal Court, per Halley J, set aside a statutory demand in CBS Commercial Canberra Pty Ltd v Axis Commercial (ACT) Pty Ltd, in the matter of CBS Commercial Canberra Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 544 in finding that an offsetting claim constitutes a genuine dispute. It is a very good decision setting out the complications of offsetting claims arising from building contracts relied upon in setting aside a statutory demand which is based on a certificate and judgment obtained under the Security of Payments Act.

FACTS

CBS engaged Axis as a sub-contractor to undertake work at a building site located in Gungahlin in the Australian Capital Territory [12].

The chronological events Read the rest of this entry »

The Federal Court, per Markovic, set aside a statutory demand in Print Mail Logistics Limited v Warratah Investments Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 1618.  It was a very hard fought fight which involved a complex factual situation and difficult legal issues.  Unusually it involved a cross examination of a deponent.  The demand was set aside because of a technical error by the respondent.

FACTS

The parties  were:

• Nigel Benjamin Elias (“Elias”),  director of Print Mail and the sole director of Print Mail Logistics (International) Pty Ltd (PMLI).
• Jennifer Joan Hutson (“Hutson”),  director and secretary of Warratah and sole director of Wellington Capital Pty Ltd (now called Southland Stokers Pty Ltd) (Wellington);
• Mark John Halle (“Halle”), director of Warratah and the chief financial officer of Wellington; and
• Wellcap Holdings Pty Ltd the ultimate holding company of Warratah and  sole shareholder of Wellington [4].

On 5 February 2013 PMLI and MMB entered into a commercial facilities agreement with  MMB makiung a facility of $312,000 available to PMLI to assist with the purchase of a property in 11 McRorie Court, Cambridge, Tasmania (Property) [5].  On 28 October 2013  PMLI and MMB entered into a commercial facilities agreement pursuant to Read the rest of this entry »

The Victorian Supreme Court, per Matthews JR, considered an application to set aside a statutory demand in  Jolimont Heights Pty Ltd v Ryan [2018] VSC 678.

FACTS

Jolimont Heights Pty Ltd (‘JH’), made an application pursuant to s 459G of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (‘Act’) by originating process dated 9 July 2018 to set aside a statutory demand dated 19 June 2018 (‘Statutory Demand’)  [1].

The application was made under s 459H &/or s 459J on the basis:

• there was a genuine dispute as to the existence of the debt
• due to some other reason, being that the Statutory Demand was defective  [2].

In support of its application, JH relied on Read the rest of this entry »

Justice Kennedy in In the Matter of Innovateq Pty Ltd [2018] VSC 124 considered an application under section 237 of the Corporations Act for leave to commence proceedings in a derivative action.  Judgments regarding leave applications are relatively uncommon.

FACTS

The proceeding involved two applications:

• leave to the plaintiff pursuant to s 237 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) to commence court proceedings in the name of Innovateq Pty Ltd (ACN 132 372 242) (Company) against Mr Daniel Phillips (a former employee) and two companies associated with him, Certeq Pty Ltd and Certeq NZ Pty Ltd (Certeq) (Leave Application); and
• for an order that the Company be wound up (Winding Up Application).

The Company, in its capacity as trustee for the Read the rest of this entry »

In Medussa Enterprises Pty Ltd v Nationwide Concrete Pumping Pty Ltd [2017] VSC 275  the Victorian Supreme Court, per Gardiner AsJ, dismissed an application to set aside a staututory demand on the basis that there was no genuine dispute.

FACTS

Medusa claimed Read the rest of this entry »

In Complete Equipment Solutions Pty Ltd v Tesab Engineering Limited (A Company Registered in the United Kingdom, Company No. NI026214) [2016] VSC 253  Associate Justice Randall considered the question of service. This is not a common issue in modern day jurisprudence relating to statutory demands. In this case a failure to comply with the service requirements resulted in the plaintiff’s application being dismissed.

FACTS

The plaintiff, by originating process dated 9 November 2015,  made an application under s 459G of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to set aside a statutory demand dated 14 October 2015 [1]. The court noted, with some annoyance, that the Read the rest of this entry »

Yesterday the Government introduced and read for a first and second time the Health Legislation Amendment (eHealth) Bill 2015.

The Bill is a 126 page behemoth which will warrant close scrutiny.  Briefly it is worth noting some notable features of the Bill:

• Part 3 provides for the collection, use and disclosure of the healthcare identifiers, identifying information and other information. The simplified outline describes the process as:

Read the rest of this entry »

For those solicitors and barristers practising in Corporations and insolvency law it is worth noting the passage of the Corporations Legislation Amendment (Deregulatory and Other Measures) Bill 2014 through the House of Representatives yesterday. While anything can happen in the Senate it is hardly a contentious piece of legislation. Its passage is assured.

The Bill, as the summary on the Parliamentary Business page on the bill states, will:

provide that a general meeting of a company must only be arranged if members with at least five per cent of voting shares make the request; reduce the remuneration reporting requirements; clarify the circumstances in which a financial year may be determined to be less than 12 months; and exempt certain companies limited by guarantee from the need to appoint or retain an auditor; and Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 to: enable members of the Takeovers Panel to perform duties while in Australia and overseas; and provide that the Remuneration Tribunal is responsible for setting the terms and conditions of Chairs and members of the Financial Reporting Council, the Australian Accounting Standards Board and the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board

The effect of the BIll include Read the rest of this entry »

In Rescom Asia Pacific Pty Ltd v Reapfield Property Consultants Pty Ltd and Foxhat Employment Service Pty Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation the Victorian Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court considered applications to set aside statutory demands in very different circumstances.

Rescom Asia Pacific Pty Ltd v Reapfield Property Consultants Pty Ltd

The applicant sought leave to appeal a decision of Randall AsJ dismissing an application to set aside a statutory demand.  The grounds of appeal included a failure to find there was a genuine dispute or offsetting claim [2].

FACTS

The statutory demand relates to a claim for commission on the sale of various apartments in Carlton. The vendor retained Rescom as the underwriter for the sale of the apartments.  It was a term of the retainer that in the event that the total sale price of the apartments did not reach a pre-determined level, Rescom would pay the difference to the vendor [6]. If the total proceeds exceeded the predetermined level the vendor would pay the excess amount to Rescom. If the total proceeds exceeded a pre-determined level by a certain amount, then the excess would be shared between Rescom and the vendor [7].

Rescom engaged Reapfield as its sole marketing agent in Singapore on terms which included a 5% commission on the transacted price of all sales within Singapore[8].  The Agreement referred to a price schedule in an Annexure A of the agreement.

There was, and is, a dispute between the parties as to contents of Annexure A to the agreement with there being two schedules, one referring to lower prices than the other. That said Randall AsJ found he did not need to determine which schedule was incorporated into the agreement for the purpose of determining the application. Focusing on the terms of the marketing agreement and on contemporaneous conduct [9] he found that the agreement did not impose an obligation on Reapfield other than to use all due care, skill and diligence.  There were no consequences for failure by Reapfield to achieve a particular price [10].

Regarding the contemporaneous conduct the Randall AsJ found [16]:

• the vendor accepted offers made by purchasers procured by Reapfield and booking forms that set out the purchase price and were signed on behalf of Rescom [over the caption] “accepted by underwriter”
• email correspondence to the effect that Rescom “appreciated the good job” and that Rescom was in the “midst of arranging payment as promised”.
• text messages passing between Rescom and Reapfield accepting the invoice for the commissions claimed without complaint and advising that payment would be made when Rescom received draw downs “from equity partners.”
• there were over 20 text messages where Reapfield sought payment and Rescom repeatedly promised to make payment.
• No complaint was made about the invoice that set out the prices obtained for each of the apartments or the liability to pay the commission [17].

DECISION

The Court referred to and liberally quoted from the latest Court of Appeal authority on statutory demands, Troutfarms Australia Pty Ltd v Perpetual Nominees Ltd, handed down last year [3].  The key principles can be reduced to the following:

•  ‘a genuine dispute’ uses ordinary English words and its meaning Read the rest of this entry »