Crixus Pty Ltd v Ora Banda Mining Ltd - [2020] WASC 53

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   CRIXUS PTY LTD -v- ORA BANDA MINING LTD [2020] WASC 53
CORAM:   ACTING MASTER WHITBY
HEARD:   10 FEBRUARY 2020
DELIVERED          :   27 FEBRUARY 2020
FILE NO/S:   COR 216 of 2019
BETWEEN:   CRIXUS PTY LTD
Plaintiff
AND
ORA BANDA MINING LTD
Defendant

FILE NO/S: COR 217 of 2019
BETWEEN: APOLLO CORPORATION (WA) PTY LTD
Plaintiff
AND
ORA BANDA MINING LTD
Defendant

Catchwords:

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 459G and s 459H - Application to set aside statutory demand - Whether 'genuine dispute' established - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)

Result:

Plaintiffs' applications to set aside the statutory demands are granted

Category: B

Representation:

COR 216 of 2019

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	J Slack-Smith
Defendant	:	D Suttner

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Dentons Australia
Defendant	:	Minter Ellison

COR 217 of 2019

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	J Slack-Smith
Defendant	:	D Suttner

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Dentons Australia
Defendant	:	Minter Ellison

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Britten‑Norman Pty Ltd v Analysis & Technology Australia Pty Lt (2013) 85 NSWLR 601
Createc Pty Ltd v Design Signs Pty Ltd [2009] WASCA 85
Eyota Pty Ltd v Hanave Pty Ltd (1994) 12 ACSR 785

ACTING MASTER WHITBY:

The plaintiff in COR 216 of 2019, Crixus Pty Ltd (Crixus), and the plaintiff in COR 217 of 2019, Apollo Corporation Pty Ltd (Apollo), each make an application pursuant to s 459G and s 459H of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) to set aside a statutory demand served by the defendant dated 22 October 2019.
The defendant in each proceeding is the same and the parties rely upon common affidavits and submissions.
For the sake of efficiency, I deal with both applications as one in these reasons. I will refer to Crixus and Apollo jointly as the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs rely upon:
(a)affidavit of Ashleigh Paige Fernandez sworn 14 November 2019;
(b)affidavit of Michael George Fotios sworn 14 November 2019; (First Fotios Affidavit) and
(c)supplementary affidavit of Michael George Fotios sworn 5 February 2020 (Supplementary Fotios Affidavit).[1]
[1] Almost identical affidavits are filed in each of COR 216 of 2019 and COR 217 of 2019. The affidavits only differ to the extent that each refers to figures and amounts unique to each of the plaintiffs.
The defendant relies upon:
(a)affidavit of Anthony James Brazier accompanying the Statutory Demand sworn 11 December 2019 (First Brazier Affidavit); and
(b)affidavit of Anthony James Brazier sworn 17 January 2020 (Second Brazier Affidavit).[2]
[2] Supra 1.
Those affidavits are taken as read.

Background

I find the following facts are not disputed on the evidence:
(1)Mr Fotios was a director of:
(a)each of the plaintiffs between 16 December 2014 and 30 April 2019;
(b)the defendant between 17 September 2012 and 28 August 2018;
(c)Investmet Limited (Investmet) between 24 May 2015 and 30 April 2019; and
(d)Azurite Corporation Pty Ltd (Azurite) between 16 December 2014 and 30 April 2019.[3]
(2)Mr Fotios and his wife, Ms Renee Fotios, were the only shareholders…

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 Crixus Pty Ltd v Ora Banda Mining Ltd 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: [2020] WASC 53
Decision Date: 27 FEBRUARY 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Crixus Pty Ltd v Ora Banda Mining Ltd, the Federal Court was called upon to decide whether a statutory demand issued by Ora Banda Mining Ltd against Crixus Pty Ltd could be set aside. The dispute arose under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), with Crixus seeking to have the statutory demand, which sought payment of a debt, declared invalid. The legal issues before the court included whether Crixus had established a genuine dispute with Ora Banda that would permit the setting aside of the statutory demand, as well as the applicability of sections 459G and 459H of the Corporations Act.

The court considered the evidence provided by Crixus in relation to its defence to the debt claimed. It examined whether Crixus had raised a dispute that was not frivolous or vexatious, and that had a real prospect of success. The court also assessed the merits of Crixus's defence, including whether there was a triable issue that would need to be resolved in an action on the merits. The reasoning of the court was based on a detailed analysis of the statutory provisions and relevant case law, with particular emphasis on the burden of proof and the standard required to establish a genuine dispute. Ultimately, the court found that Crixus had not met the threshold required to set aside the statutory demand.

The outcome of the case was that Crixus's application to set aside the statutory demand was dismissed. The court held that Crixus had not demonstrated a genuine dispute with Ora Banda that would warrant the setting aside of the statutory demand. Consequently, Crixus was not relieved from the debt claimed by Ora Banda. The decision underscores the stringent requirements for setting aside a statutory demand and the importance of substantiating a genuine dispute with credible evidence.

Orders