Legal Research
Cases
Austar Finance Group Pty Ltd v Campbell

Austar Finance Group Pty Ltd v Campbell

Link copied

Case Copied 21 December 2007 40 min read

Contents

On this page

CITATION: Austar Finance v Campbell [2007] NSWSC 1493

HEARING DATE(S): 12 December 2007

JUDGMENT DATE :
21 December 2007

JURISDICTION: Equity

JUDGMENT OF: Austin J

DECISION: Application not properly served; proceedings dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: CORPORATIONS - winding up - statutory demand - application for orders setting aside - validity of service of application and supporting affidavit - supporting affidavit served by facsimile before filing - application transmitted by facsimile before filing and then in a broken facsimile after filing, not seen until outside the 21 day period - application also transmitted by email, not seen until after the 21 day period

LEGISLATION CITED: Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), ss 28A, 29
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 63
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), ss 5C, 109X, 459G
Corporations Regulations, Form 509H
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, rules 10.5, 10.14, 10.20, 10.21

CASES CITED: Australian Coastal Shipping Commission v Curtis Cruising Pty Ltd (1987) 17 NSWLR 735
Australian Securities Commission v Bank Leumi Le-Israel (Switzerland) (1996) 69 FCR 531
Bernuth Lines Ltd v High Seas Shipping Ltd [2006] 1 All ER (Comm) 359
CFC Corporation Pty Ltd v Lanier (Australia) Pty Ltd (1993) 11 ACSR 772
Condor Asset Management Ltd v Excelsior Eastern Ltd [2005] NSWSC 1139
David Grant & Co Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation (1995) 184 CLR 265
Dwyer v Canon Australia Pty Ltd [2007] SASC 100
Harkness v Bell's Asbestos and Engineering Ltd [1967] 2 QB 729
Hastie & Jenkerson (a firm) v McMahon [1991] 1 All ER 255
Howship Holdings Pty Ltd v Leslie (1996) 41 NSWLR 542
NM Superannuation Pty Ltd v Hughes (1992) 27 NSWLR 26
Rochester Communications Group Pty Ltd v Lader Pty Ltd (1997) 143 ALR 648
Seventh Cameo Nominees Pty Ltd v Holdway Pty Ltd (Supreme Court of Victoria (unreported, Chernov J, 24 April 1998)

PARTIES: Austar Finance Group Pty Ltd (P)
Guy Alexander Campbell T/A d:COM Marketing (D)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 4954/07

COUNSEL: Mr R W Tregenza (P)
Mr T Rickard (D)

SOLICITORS: Henaghan Mclean (P)

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

AUSTIN J

FRIDAY 21 DECEMBER 2007

4954/07 AUSTAR FINANCE GROUP PTY LTD V GUY ALEXANDER CAMPBELL T/A D:COM MARKETING

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: By an originating process filed 11 October 2007, the plaintiff seeks to set aside the defendant's statutory demand dated 18 September 2007 for $14,000, “for design, and marketing services undertaken for the Company”, including “corporate identity programmes and marketing collateral, web sites, web hosting and domain name registrations, marketing and graphic design services”. The defendant is an individual, not a company.

2 The plaintiff seeks to set the demand aside on the basis that there is a genuine dispute about the existence of the debt. The hearing raised two issues, namely whether the application to set aside the statutory demand and the supporting affidavit were properly served; and whether there was a genuine dispute with respect to the existence or amount of the debt. I have reached the conclusion that the…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Austar Finance Group Pty Ltd v Campbell and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2007] NSWSC 1493
Decision Date: 21 December 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Austar Finance Group Pty Ltd v Campbell, the applicant sought to wind up the defendant's company. The applicant had issued a statutory demand and subsequently lodged an application to set it aside. The primary issue before the court was whether the application was served within the statutory time limit, despite being initially transmitted by facsimile before the application was filed. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the application was validly served when it was transmitted by email after the 21-day period had elapsed.

The court considered the provisions of the relevant legislation and the rules governing the service of documents. It examined the precise timing of the service of the application and affidavit, taking into account that the supporting affidavit was served by facsimile before the application was filed. The court also analysed the significance of the broken facsimile and subsequent email transmission, noting that the application was not viewed until outside the statutory time frame. The court held that the initial facsimile transmission of the supporting affidavit was sufficient to commence the service period, but the subsequent email transmission was ineffective due to the delay. Consequently, the application to set aside the statutory demand was deemed invalid.

The court concluded that the applicant's application to set aside the statutory demand was invalid because it was not served within the required timeframe. The court emphasised the importance of strict compliance with statutory time limits and the need for clear and timely service of legal documents. As a result, the application was dismissed, and no further orders were made regarding the winding up of the defendant's company.

Orders