Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Dux Plumbing Pty Limited v McNeice [2013] NSWSC 755 Hearing dates: 22/05/2013 Decision date: 14 June 2013 Jurisdiction: Equity Division - Corporations List Before: Young AJ Decision: Statutory demand set aside; Defendant to pay plaintiffs costs
Catchwords: CORPORATIONS - Debts - Statutory demand - Application to set aside statutory demand Category: Principal judgment Parties: Dux Plumbing Pty Limited (Plaintiff)
David McNeice (First Defendant)
Aleita R McNeice (Second Defendant)Representation: Counsel:
ET Finnane (Plaintiff)
RW Tregenza (Defendants)
Solicitors:
Senses Legal (Plaintiff)
Autore & Associates (Defendants)
File Number(s): 2012/140376
Judgment
HIS HONOUR: This is an application to set aside a statutory demand.
The company under review is one of a group of five companies against which statutory demands were served. In each case the company moved to set aside the statutory demand. The five matters were heard together, with evidence in one being evidence in all.
I heard the matters on 22 May 2013 and reserved my decision.
Earlier today I handed down judgment in the lead matter of Touma Family Super Fund Pty Limited v McNeice (2012/140381). As I indicated in the judgment, the reasons outlined in Touma Family Super Fund are applicable to the present case. This judgment will only deal with matters that are of specific concern to the present case.
The statutory demand dated 5 April 2012 was received on 12 April 2012. It claimed a debt of $9,515.00. That was made up of two amounts, namely;
(a) Invoice #4004 for $7,150.00; and
(b) Invoice #4014 for $2,365.00.
The former invoice related to tax services for 2009. This would seem to be in exactly the same plight as part of invoice #4002 in the Touma Family Superannuation Fund. Likewise, invoice #4014 is identical to invoice #4015 in the Touma Family Superannuation Fund matter.
For the reasons detailed at [30] and [35] of my judgment in Touma Family Super Fund, I disallow both of these items.
It follows that the statutory demands must be set aside and the defendants must pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings.
**********
- AGLC
- Dux Plumbing Pty Limited v McNeice [2013] NSWSC 755
- Case
- [2013] NSWSC 755
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine if the statutory demand was valid and whether it was issued for an improper purpose. The key issue was whether the debt claimed in the demand was just, considering that it included interest and costs. Additionally, the court had to consider whether McNeice had acted in bad faith by issuing the demand for an improper purpose, such as pressuring Dux Plumbing to settle the debt.
The court found that the statutory demand was valid and that the debt claimed was just, including the interest and costs. The court noted that the statutory demand was issued within the required timeframe and followed the necessary procedures. The court held that there was no evidence to support the claim that the demand was issued for an improper purpose. The court concluded that McNeice acted in good faith and that the statutory demand was properly issued. The application to set aside the statutory demand was dismissed.
As a result, the statutory demand remained in effect, and Dux Plumbing was required to pay the debt as claimed. The court did not make any orders regarding costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.