Hills Motorway Ltd v UBS AG

Hills Motorway Ltd and UBS AG were involved in a legal dispute concerning a statutory demand issued by the plaintiff against the defendants. The crux of the matter was the validity of the statutory demand in light of certain procedural irregularities and the defendants' contention that the demand incorrectly identified the nature of their liability. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue was whether the statutory demand could be set aside due to procedural errors, specifically regarding the manner in which the debt was claimed and the timing of an affidavit related to an offset. The court needed to determine if the demand was defective because it was made against the defendants as if they were severally liable, rather than jointly liable. Another point of contention was whether an affidavit seeking to amend the amount of the claimed offset, filed after the 21-day period allowed by the Corporations Act, could be considered.

The court found that the statutory demand was not defective on the basis that it was made against the defendants as severally liable. The court reasoned that the demand was still valid as the defendants, being jointly liable, would be satisfied by the payment of the amount claimed in one of the demands. Furthermore, the court held that a claim for less than the actual debt did not constitute a defect that would justify setting aside the demand. The court also found that the affidavit, which was filed beyond the 21-day period, did not affect the validity of the demands because the claimed offset was too small to have any significant impact. The court relied on the principle from Graywinter that such late amendments do not provide grounds for setting aside a demand.

The final orders of the court were that the application to set aside the statutory demands was dismissed. The court held that the statutory demands remained valid and enforceable against the defendants, Hills Motorway Ltd and UBS AG.