Craneford Nominees Pty Ltd v VGC Co-Operative Ltd

Craneford Nominees Pty Ltd appealed against the decision of a master of the Supreme Court dismissing their action to set aside a statutory demand issued by VGC Co-Operative Ltd. The master had held that the court lacked jurisdiction because the appellant had not served a copy of the application on the respondent in accordance with s 459G(3)(b) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The appellant argued that the master had erred in finding that the document was not a 'copy of the application' within the meaning of s 459G(3)(b) and that the omission of the Registrar’s signature and the filing date rendered the document not a copy within the meaning of the section.

The court considered whether the omission of the Registrar’s signature and the filing date from the copy application served meant that the copy was not a sufficient copy of the application to satisfy the requirements of s 459G(3)(b). The respondent argued that the authorities established that the document served must inform the recipient that the proceedings had in fact commenced through acceptance by the court of the originating process and inform the recipient of the return date. However, the court found that the authorities relied on by the master did not compel the conclusion that the omission of the Registrar’s signature and the filing date rendered the document not a copy within the meaning of the section. The court held that the document served by the appellant satisfied the description of a ‘copy of the application’ in s 459G, as it reflected the form of originating process, evidenced the court’s acceptance by the court’s ‘Received’ stamp and action number, and recorded the return date of the application.

The court concluded that the master had erred in finding that the document was not a sufficient copy of the application to satisfy the requirements of s 459G(3)(b) and that the omission of the Registrar’s signature and the filing date did not render the document not a copy within the meaning of the section. The court held that the court had jurisdiction to set aside the statutory demand and that the appeal should be allowed. The matter was remitted to the master to hear and determine the merits of the application. The court did not consider it necessary to make any orders in relation to costs.