Heirloom Vineyards Wine Company Pty Ltd v Sante Wines Pty Ltd

Heirloom Vineyards Wine Company Pty Ltd and Dandelion Wines Pty Ltd (the companies) appealed to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria against a single judge's decision to dismiss their application to set aside statutory demands issued by Sante Wines Pty Ltd. The dispute arose from alleged failures by Sante to pay invoices for wine supplied, leading the companies to terminate their distribution agreements and subsequently issue statutory demands for the outstanding amounts. Sante then filed a single originating process seeking to set aside both statutory demands, citing offsetting claims and other grounds.

The primary legal issue before the Full Court was whether the single judge had erred in dismissing Sante's application to set aside the statutory demands. Specifically, the court considered the procedural validity of Sante filing a single application to challenge two separate statutory demands issued by different companies, and whether this approach was permissible under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and relevant case law. The court also had to determine if the statutory regime for setting aside statutory demands contemplated or permitted such a consolidated application.

The Full Court, in dismissing the appeal, affirmed the single judge's reasoning that the statutory framework established by Part 5.4 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) implies a requirement for a separate application to challenge each statutory demand. The court relied on the principle that the Act sets up a closely knit regime designed for the swift resolution of disputes concerning debts. Allowing a single summons to address multiple demands, particularly when served on different dates, would create significant procedural complexities, including difficulties in applying the 21-day time limit for setting aside demands under s 459G(2) and in preparing a supporting affidavit that adequately addresses distinct subject matters. This approach aligns with previous decisions that have emphasised the need for distinct applications for each statutory demand to maintain the efficiency and clarity of the statutory demand process.