Dominion Capital Pty Ltd v Pico Holdings Inc

In the case of Dominion Capital Pty Ltd v Pico Holdings Inc, the primary dispute involved the validity of a statutory demand served by Pico Holdings Inc on Dominion Capital Pty Ltd. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where Dominion sought to set aside the statutory demand, arguing it was improperly served. The crux of the dispute was whether the statutory demand, which did not specify an address for service in the state where the demand was served, complied with the statutory requirements. The case turned on whether the statutory demand was validly served and whether the court had jurisdiction to hear the application under the Corporations Act 2001.

The court had to decide several legal issues, including whether the statutory demand was served in compliance with section 9 of the Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth). Additionally, the court had to consider whether it had jurisdiction to hear the application to set aside the statutory demand as the statutory demand did not specify an address for service in Victoria, where the demand was served. The court also had to determine whether the Senior Master had the authority to make inhibiting orders when such orders were neither formally applied for nor supported by proper material. The final issue was whether the merits of the application should be assessed in deciding whether to make the inhibiting orders.

The court found that the statutory demand was not served in compliance with the statutory requirements, as it did not specify an address for service in the state where the demand was served, and the creditor had no registered office in Australia. Consequently, the application and supporting affidavit had not been effectively served "in accordance with" the requirements of section 459G(2) and (3) of the Corporations Act 2001. Therefore, the court did not have jurisdiction to hear the application. Furthermore, the court agreed with the submission that the Senior Master should not have made inhibiting orders without a formal application and proper material supporting such an application. The court found that making such orders could potentially abuse the process or cause hardship or injustice to the debtor.

The final orders of the court were that the application by Dominion to set aside the statutory demand should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The court also decided that the Senior Master's inhibiting orders should not have been made, as they were not formally applied for and lacked proper supporting material. The court's decision highlights the importance of strict compliance with statutory requirements for serving statutory demands and the necessity of proper jurisdictional grounds for court applications.