MP High Court: Estranged Husband Entitled to Loss of Consortium Compensation After Wife’s Death  ||  J&K & Ladakh HC: Claims under Roshni Act Void Ab Initio, Ownership Rights Null from Inception  ||  Madras High Court Directs Expedited Trials in 216 Pending Criminal Cases Against MPs and MLAs  ||  MP High Court: Allowing Minor to Drive Without Valid License Constitutes Breach of Insurance Policy  ||  Punjab & Haryana High Court: Cyber Fraud Cases Uphold Public Trust, Cannot Be Quashed by Compromise  ||  SC: Customer-Banker Relationship Based on Mutual Trust, Postmaster’s Reinstatement Quashed  ||  Supreme Court: Company Buying Software for Efficiency and Profit Is Not a ‘Consumer’ under CPA  ||  SC: Long Custody or Trial Delay Not Ground for Bail in Commercial Narcotic Cases if S.37 Unmet  ||  Calcutta HC Disqualifies Politician Mukul Roy from Assembly under Anti-Defection Law  ||  Supreme Court Bans Mining in and Around National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries    

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 2025 - All Rights Reserved