Advanced Real Estate v Holland

[2004] NSWSC 364

CITATION:	Advanced Real Estate v Holland [2004] NSWSC 364
HEARING DATE(S):	Friday 30 April 2004
JUDGMENT DATE:	30 April 2004
JURISDICTION:	Equity
JUDGMENT OF:	Master Macready at 1
DECISION:	In each matter I order that the creditor's statutory demand for payment issued by the defendant and served on the plaintiff should be set aside. I order the defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs on an indemnity basis.
CATCHWORDS:	Corporations law -- Application to set aside statutory demand -- Demand set aside -- No matter of principle
PARTIES :	Advanced Real Estate (NSW) Pty Limited v Jackie Edwards Paul Graeme Holland
FILE NUMBER(S):	SC 2149/04; 2150/04
COUNSEL:	G Carolan - Plaintiff
SOLICITORS:	Phillip Saul - Plaintiff

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

Master Macready

Friday 30 April 2004

2149/04 Advanced Real Estate (NSW) Pty Limited v Jackie Edwards
2150/04 Advanced Real Estate (NSW) Pty Limited v Paul Graeme Holland

JUDGMENT

1 MASTER: These are applications to set aside statutory demands in which demands were made for moneys said to be due to each of the persons set out in the summons and which arise pursuant to an alleged employment agreement between the company and that person.

2 The company is a company that operated a number of L J Hooker franchises, and it proposed to set up a new franchise at a new office. After the office was constructed, Mr Bryan Richard Harper, who was going to be originally the franchise manager, was in the office and was carrying out his own business, not the L J Hooker franchise business during the course of the relevant period.

3 Ultimately, L J Hooker did not approve the franchisee and someone else was appointed before the franchise started.

4 At some stage the defendants had placed under Mr Harper’s nose, during a telephone call, a form of employment form filled out with the name of the plaintiff company on it, showing it trading as L J Hooker Chester Hill, and it was signed by Mr Harper. Mr Harper has denied in affidavit evidence that he had authority to sign, and did not know what he was signing at the time.

5 In the circumstances it seems to me there is a genuine dispute as to whether or not there was an employment contract between the defendants and the plaintiff company. Accordingly, I am satisfied that there is a genuine dispute in respect of the whole of the amount claimed in each matter.

6 Accordingly, in each matter, I order that the creditor’s statutory demand for payment issued by the defendant and served on the plaintiff should be set aside. I order the defendants to pay the plaintiff’s costs on an indemnity basis.

**********

Last Modified: 05/03/2004