GIANFRANCO CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD -v- GROUND AND FOUNDATION SUPPORTS PTY LTD [2000] WASC 245
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2000] WASC 245 | |
| 06/10/2000 | |||
| Case No: | COR:238/2000 | 20 SEPTEMBER 2000 | |
| Coram: | MASTER BREDMEYER | 20/09/00 | |
| 3 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application allowed | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | GIANFRANCO CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD (ACN 053 450 712) GROUND AND FOUNDATION SUPPORTS PTY LTD (ACN 009 432 964) |
Catchwords: | Corporations Statutory demand Genuine dispute |
Legislation: | Corporations Law, s 459H(1) |
Case References: | Spencer Constructions Pty Ltd v G & M Aidridge Pty Ltd (1997) 15 ACLC 1001 Taylor v Johnson (1983) 151 CLR 422 Turner Corporation (WA) Pty Ltd v Blackburn & Dixon Pty Ltd [1999] WASCA 294 Nil |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CHAMBERS
- Plaintiff
AND
GROUND AND FOUNDATION SUPPORTS PTY LTD (ACN 009 432 964)
Defendant
Catchwords:
Corporations - Statutory demand - Genuine dispute
Legislation:
Corporations Law, s 459H(1)
(Page 2)
Result:
Application allowed
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff : Mr J Scovell
Defendant : Mr G B Giles
Solicitors:
Plaintiff : Healy Pynt
Defendant : Taylor Smart
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Spencer Constructions Pty Ltd v G & M Aidridge Pty Ltd (1997) 15 ACLC 1001
Taylor v Johnson (1983) 151 CLR 422
Turner Corporation (WA) Pty Ltd v Blackburn & Dixon Pty Ltd [1999] WASCA 294
Case(s) also cited:
Nil
(Page 3)
1 MASTER BREDMEYER: A statutory demand can be set aside if there is a genuine dispute or an offsetting claim: s 459H(1) of the Corporations Law. In this case the plaintiff says there is a genuine dispute as to why the debt of $109,178.50 is not paid. A genuine dispute is one which is bona fide and truly exists in fact and where the grounds alleging the existence of the dispute are real and not spurious, hypothetical, illusory, or misconceived: Spencer Constructions Pty Ltd v G & M Aidridge Pty Ltd (1997) 15 ACLC 1001 per the Federal Full Court, as adopted by our Full Court in Turner Corporation (WA) Pty Ltd v Blackburn & Dixon Pty Ltd [1999] WASCA 294.
2 The plaintiff says the piles are in the wrong place; they encroach onto Lot 6 next door. There is a surveyor's report dated 17 August 2000 showing the extent of the encroachment. Fourteen piles encroach and the extent of the encroachment varies from 201 mm - 345 mm. It would cost $100,000 to remedy. That is an estimate, but from a man with 23 years experience in the business. It could be more or less. It is sufficient in my view to say that the whole debt, the subject of the demand, is disputed.
3 The defendant relies on two letters of 4 August and 7 August 2000 as constituting an agreement that the plaintiff would pay to the defendant $109,178.58 in "full and final settlement of all claims between the parties". That agreement - in the exchange of those letters - represents a compromise of two minor claims, one for $2,661.50 and approximately $744 on the labour claim for one and a half hours work. These reductions are apparently conceded by the defendant in asking $109,178.50.
4 However this "compromise agreement" is not a compromise agreement of the defective work claim which was not then known to the plaintiff's Mr Rasile. An agreement can be set aside on the basis of mistake of fact: see Taylor v Johnson (1983) 151 CLR 422.
5 I consider the plaintiff has raised a genuine dispute and this demand should be set aside. The defendant needs to sue or arbitrate for its claimed debt.
6 As an aside, I draw the attention of the parties to s 122 and s 123 of the Property Law Act 1969 (WA) which may be of assistance.
- AGLC
- Gianfranco Constructions Pty Ltd v Ground and Foundation Supports Pty Ltd [2000] WASC 245
- Case
- [2000] WASC 245
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether Ground and Foundation Supports had a genuine dispute regarding the debt claimed by Gianfranco Constructions, which would render the statutory demand invalid. The court considered whether Ground and Foundation Supports had raised a valid dispute over the existence or amount of the debt, or if there was no reasonable basis for their claim. The court examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties to ascertain the existence of a genuine dispute.
In its reasoning, the court held that Ground and Foundation Supports had raised a genuine dispute over the existence and quantum of the debt claimed by Gianfranco Constructions. The court found that the evidence presented by Ground and Foundation Supports demonstrated a valid dispute over the alleged debt, including issues regarding the contractual terms, the scope of work performed, and the payment process. Consequently, the court determined that the statutory demand was invalid due to the genuine dispute raised by Ground and Foundation Supports. As a result, the application to set aside the statutory demand was allowed.
The final orders of the court were that the application by Ground and Foundation Supports to set aside the statutory demand issued by Gianfranco Constructions was allowed. This ruling effectively invalidated the statutory demand, allowing Ground and Foundation Supports to pursue their defence and counterclaims in the original proceedings. The court's decision underscored the importance of a genuine dispute in challenging the validity of a statutory demand and the need for evidence to support such a claim.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application allowed
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.