J&K&L HC: Delay in Executing Preventive Detention on Unsubstantiated Medical Ground Makes it Invalid  ||  Delhi HC Allows AITA Results For Interim Management and Directs Fresh Elections Under New Sports Law  ||  J&K&L HC: Preventive Detention U/S 129 BNSS During Proceedings Must Satisfy Strict Legal Standards  ||  Gujarat HC: Firing in Air at a Wedding Without Intent to Harm Does Not Amount to Attempt to Murder  ||  Bom HC: Developers’ Profit Rights in Redevelopment Cannot Override Members’ Right to Safe Housing  ||  Supreme Court: Joint Accused Statements are Admissible Only When They Result in Distinct Discoveries  ||  SC to Ex-MLA in Money Laundering Case: Duped Homebuyer Must be Safeguarded First, then Consider Bail  ||  Supreme Court: Right to a Speedy Trial Cannot Override NDPS Act Bail Conditions  ||  SC: Relatives Cannot be Implicated in Bigamy Solely Based on Knowledge of a Second Marriage  ||  Supreme Court: Service Inam Land Attached to a Mosque Constitutes Waqf Property and is Inalienable    

Corinthian Mining Pty Ltd vs. Lloyd George Mining Pty Ltd - (26 Jul 2023)

Company served with a statutory demand may apply to the court for an order setting it aside within 21 days after its service

Civil

The Plaintiff, Corinthian Mining Pty Ltd (Corinthian), is seeking to set aside the Defendant's statutory demand for payment of a non-judgment debt in the sum of $93,605 pursuant to Section 459G of the Corporations Act, 2001. Alternatively, the plaintiff seeks to vary the statutory demand by reducing the sum by $17,100.

Section 459E of the Act contains a statutory regime by which a creditor may serve a statutory demand on a company in respect of a debt or debts which are due and payable, provided the debts meet at least the statutory minimum amount. Pursuant to Section 459G of the Act, a company served with a statutory demand may apply to the court for an order setting it aside. The application must be made within 21 days after the statutory demand was served.

Present Court is not satisfied that the incorrect party issued the statutory demand. The Plaintiff has not established that a genuine dispute exists regarding the existence of the debt on this basis. However, there is a genuine dispute about the amount stated in the demand confined to the difference between the rate Mr. Wemys stated he was prepared to pay and the rate at which he was invoiced. In the exercise of the discretion conferred by Section 459H(4), the statutory demand will be varied by the sum of $17,100 which makes the statutory demand one for $76,505.

Tags : DEBT   DEMAND   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved