Bevic Holdings Pty Ltd v Wright

Bevic Holdings Pty Ltd sought leave to appeal from a decision of the primary judge who had dismissed its application to set aside a statutory demand issued by Wright. The dispute concerned whether there was a genuine dispute about the existence of the debt claimed in the statutory demand, or alternatively, whether there was "some other reason" why the demand should be set aside, pursuant to section 459G of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the primary judge erred in finding that there was no genuine dispute as to the existence of the debt. It also had to consider whether the primary judge correctly concluded that there was no "other reason" sufficient to justify setting aside the statutory demand.

McColl JA and Sackville AJA found that the primary judge had not erred in their assessment of the evidence. They held that the grounds for setting aside a statutory demand under section 459G are limited and that the applicant had failed to demonstrate a genuine dispute about the debt or any other compelling reason to set aside the demand. The Court concluded that the application for leave to appeal did not raise an issue of principle, a question of general public importance, or an injustice beyond an arguable error, which are typically required for leave to appeal in such circumstances.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and ordered Bevic Holdings Pty Ltd to pay the costs of the application.