Advanced Management v Beech - [2003] NSWSC 638

CITATION: Advanced Management v Beech [2003] NSWSC 638

HEARING DATE(S): 11/07/03

JUDGMENT DATE:
18 July 2003

JURISDICTION:
Equity Division

JUDGMENT OF: Master Macready at 1

DECISION:

CATCHWORDS: Corporations Law. Application to set aside statutory demand. Whether a referance to Review Panel of a determination of a costs assessor operates as a stay of judgment. On the facts no referral during the currency of the demand. Proceedings dismssed.

PARTIES :
Advanced Management Consultancy Pty Limited v Martin Conway Beech

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 3097 of 2003

COUNSEL: Mr S.J. Stanton for plaintiff

SOLICITORS:
Aitken McLachlan Thorpe for plaintiff
Mr T. Bors of Hasset Dixon for defendant

- 1 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
CORPORATIONS LIST

MASTER MACREADY

Friday 18 July 2003

3097 of 2003 ADVANCED MANAGEMENT CONSULTANCY PTY LIMITED v MARTIN CONWAY BEECH

JUDGMENT

1 MASTER: This is an application under the Corporations Act to set aside a statutory demand served by the defendant on the plaintiff which is dated 13 May 2003. The statutory demand sought recovery of $50,272.43 being the amount of a judgment debt obtained in the District Court in respect of an order for costs in litigation between the two parties.

2 The plaintiff in these proceedings was the plaintiff in District Court proceedings No 5856 of 1998 which were heard at first instance in October 2000. The plaintiff was successful before the trial judge and obtained a verdict of $76,011.17. There was an appeal from that decision to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal set aside the judgment and ordered a retrial which is listed for hearing in the District Court on 21 and 22 July 2003. The Court of Appeal ordered the respondent to pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal and to have a certificate under the Suitors Fund Act if otherwise qualified.

3 On 22 October 2002 there was an application by the defendant for an assessment of the party and party costs in that order. A Certificate of Determination and a Statement of Reasons was given by the Costs Assessor on 12 May 2003.

4 The next day, namely 13 May 2003 the defendant lodged the Certificate of Determination in the District Court and as a result there was judgment against the plaintiff in the sum of $50,272.43. The judgment was given pursuant to section 208 J (3) of the Legal Profession Act 1987 which is in the following terms:-

5 There is a procedure under…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Advanced Management v Beech

Details

AGLC: Advanced Management v Beech [2003] NSWSC 638
Case: [2003] NSWSC 638
Decision Date: 18 July 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Advanced Management lodged a statutory demand against Beech under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) seeking payment of a debt. Beech applied to set aside the statutory demand, arguing that a referral to a Review Panel of a determination by a costs assessor operated as a stay of judgment. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where the central issue was whether the reference to the Review Panel constituted a stay of judgment, thereby preventing the statutory demand from being enforced. The Court found that there was no reference to the Review Panel during the currency of the statutory demand, and therefore, the demand was not stayed. The Court dismissed Beech's application to set aside the statutory demand, concluding that there was no valid stay of judgment in place. Consequently, the statutory demand remained enforceable, and Advanced Management could proceed with its claim against Beech for the outstanding debt.

Orders