Australian Solar Electrics Pty Ltd v IPD Group Ltd

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Australian Solar Electrics Pty Ltd v IPD Group Ltd [2012] FCA 786

Citation:		Australian Solar Electrics Pty Ltd v IPD Group Ltd [2012] FCA 786
Parties:		AUSTRALIAN SOLAR ELECTRICS PTY LTD v IPD GROUP LTD
File number:		VID 300 of 2012
Judge:		GORDON J
Date of judgment:		24 July 2012
Date of hearing:	24 July 2012
Date of last submissions:	24 July 2012
Place:	Melbourne
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	No catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	13
Counsel for the Plaintiff:	LMF Watts
Solicitor for the Plaintiff:	Belleli King & Associates
Counsel for the Defendant:	MAJ McKillop
Solicitor for the Defendant:	Colin Biggers & Paisley

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	VID 300 of 2012

IN THE MATTER OF AUSTRALIAN SOLAR ELECTRICS PTY LTD (ACN 149 883 545)
BETWEEN:	AUSTRALIAN SOLAR ELECTRICS PTY LTD (ACN 149 883 545) Plaintiff
AND:	IPD GROUP LTD (ACN 066 256 193) Defendant

JUDGE:	GORDON J
DATE OF ORDER:	24 JULY 2012
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The Interlocutory Application filed on 7 June 2012 is dismissed.

2.The Plaintiff pay the Defendant’s costs.

Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	VID 300 of 2012

IN THE MATTER OF AUSTRALIAN SOLAR ELECTRICS PTY LTD (ACN 149 883 545)
BETWEEN:	AUSTRALIAN SOLAR ELECTRICS PTY LTD (ACN 149 883 545) Plaintiff
AND:	IPD GROUP LTD (ACN 066 256 193) Defendant

JUDGE:	GORDON J
DATE:	24 JULY 2012
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

1. The Defendant issued to the Plaintiff a statutory demand for payment of $220,000. The demand was dated 9 March 2012. On 14 March 2012, the demand was taken by a process server to the Plaintiff’s registered office – c/ Bentley Partners, Suite 14, 84 Church Street, Richmond in the State of Victoria. The demand was not left because the premises were vacant. On the same day, the process server instead took the demand to the new premises occupied by Bentley Partners – 744 Bourke Street, Docklands. The receptionist at Bentley Partners confirmed that the premises were the registered office of the Plaintiff. On or about 19 March 2012, Mr Daniel Cobb, one of the two shareholders in the Plaintiff, received a copy of the demand and supporting affidavit. On 11 April 2012, 23 days after the demand came to Mr Cobb’s attention, the Plaintiff applied under ss 459G and 459J of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) to set aside the demand.  On 17 May 2012, Registrar Luxton dismissed the application.

2. The Plaintiff seeks to set aside the orders made by Registrar Luxton.

   ANALYSIS

3. The Plaintiff submitted that the orders made by Registrar Luxton should be set aside on the grounds that the demand was not served in accordance with s 109X of the Act: Rochester Communications Group Pty Ltd v Lader Pty Ltd (1997) 143 ALR 648. The Plaintiff submitted that service…