Global Cement (North Qld) P/L v Benchmark Debtor Finance P/L; ARMC Concrete Products Pty Ltd v Benchmark Debtor Finance P/L

Global Cement (North Qld) P/L and ARMC Concrete Products Pty Ltd sought an injunction to prevent Benchmark Debtor Finance P/L from applying to wind up the applicant companies on the basis of non-compliance with statutory demands. The applicants argued that the statutory demands contained errors, rendering them invalid and thus the respondents should be restrained from making an application to wind up the companies on the presumption of insolvency. The applicants also argued that the respondents had not complied with the statutory demand, as they had not paid the debts specified in the demands within the required period.

The court was required to determine whether the errors in the statutory demands rendered them invalid under section 459E of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The court was also required to decide whether the respondents should be restrained from making an application to wind up the applicants on the presumption of insolvency founded upon non-compliance with the statutory demand, despite the applicants also having failed to comply with the demands.

The court found that the errors in the statutory demands did not render them invalid, as they did not affect the respondents' ability to understand the demands and the consequences of non-compliance. The court also found that the applicants had failed to establish that the respondents had not complied with the demands, as the applicants had not provided evidence of the amounts owing under the demands. The court held that the presumption of insolvency based on non-compliance with the statutory demand could not be rebutted by the applicants' failure to comply with the demands. The court dismissed the applications in both proceedings.

The court dismissed the applications in both proceedings, finding that the errors in the statutory demands did not render them invalid and that the applicants had failed to establish that the respondents had not complied with the demands. The court held that the presumption of insolvency based on non-compliance with the statutory demand could not be rebutted by the applicants' failure to comply with the demands. The court did not grant the injunctions sought by the applicants.