Finance & Equity v Leveraged Equities; Aussie Products v Leveraged Equities

Finance & Equity and Aussie Products, collectively referred to as the plaintiffs, brought an application against Leveraged Equities, the defendant, under sections 459G, 459H, or 459J(1)(b) of the Corporations Act 2001 to set aside statutory demands. The plaintiffs sought to contest the validity of statutory demands for payment made by the defendant, claiming that there was a genuine dispute or a countervailing claim that could potentially defeat the demand for repayment. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues that the court had to address were whether the plaintiffs had a genuine dispute or a countervailing claim that could set aside the statutory demands for repayment, and whether the plaintiffs had provided sufficient evidence to support their claim that their position would have been better if they had not borrowed the money. The court also had to consider whether there was any evidence to suggest that the lender would not enforce its contractual rights to demand repayment without default.

In delivering its judgment, the court found that the plaintiffs had failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim that their position would have been better if they had not borrowed the money. The court noted that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated that their position was worse than it would have been had they not borrowed the money. The court also found that there was no direct or indirect indication that the lender would not enforce its contractual rights to demand repayment without default. The court held that there was no genuine dispute as to the existence of the debt, and that the statutory demands were valid.

As a result of the court's findings, the application by the plaintiffs to set aside the statutory demands was dismissed. The court held that the plaintiffs had not established a genuine dispute or a countervailing claim that could potentially defeat the demand for repayment. The final orders of the court were that the application be dismissed with costs.