CGU Workers' Compensation (NSW) Ltd v Harry Wever Pty Ltd

In the case of CGU Workers' Compensation (NSW) Ltd v Harry Wever Pty Ltd, the plaintiff sought to wind up the defendant company on the basis of an unpaid debt. The defendant contested the winding up order, arguing that the debt was not owed because the workers' compensation policy that gave rise to the debt had been cancelled. The plaintiff had decided to executively reverse the debt and subsequently served a statutory demand on the defendant. The defendant applied to set aside the winding up order and the statutory demand, contending that it was solvent and that any debts owed were discharged by forgiveness or novation. The court had to determine whether the winding up order should be set aside and whether the defendant was solvent. It also had to consider whether any debts owed by the defendant had been discharged by forgiveness or novation.

The court found that the statutory demand and the winding up order should be set aside. The court held that the debt claimed by the plaintiff was not owed by the defendant because the workers' compensation policy had been cancelled prior to the claim. The court also found that the defendant was solvent and that any debts owed by the defendant had been discharged by forgiveness or novation. The court held that the plaintiff's decision to executively reverse the debt was not valid because the policy had been cancelled, and the debt was no longer owed. The court further held that the defendant had a good defence to the claim and that the winding up order should be set aside.

The court ordered that the winding up order be set aside and that the statutory demand be set aside. The court also ordered that the defendant's costs of the application be paid by the plaintiff. The court held that the defendant had established a good defence to the claim and that the winding up order should be set aside. The court found that the defendant was solvent and that any debts owed by the defendant had been discharged by forgiveness or novation. The court further held that the plaintiff's decision to executively reverse the debt was not valid because the policy had been cancelled, and the debt was no longer owed.

The final orders of the court were that the winding up order and the statutory demand be set aside, and that the defendant's costs of the application be paid by the plaintiff. The court found that the defendant had established a good defence to the claim and that the winding up order should be set aside. The court held that the defendant was solvent and that any debts owed by the defendant had been discharged by forgiveness or novation. The court further held that the plaintiff's decision to executively reverse the debt was not valid because the policy had been cancelled, and the debt was no longer owed.