In the matter of Access Private Equity trading as Sydney VIP Boat Charters

In the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, the case of Access Private Equity trading as Sydney VIP Boat Charters involved a statutory demand filed by a creditor against a debtor company. The crux of the dispute was whether a genuine dispute existed in relation to the debt claimed, particularly focusing on the terms of the solicitor-client relationship and the potential for a "no win no fee" arrangement. The defendant, Access Private Equity, contested the validity of the statutory demand by arguing that there was a genuine dispute regarding the terms of its retainer with its legal representatives, including the possibility of a "no win no fee" agreement.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine if there was a genuine dispute regarding the debt claimed, as required under the relevant legislation. This involved examining the nature of the solicitor-client relationship and whether there was an agreement that would absolve the defendant from liability in the event of a failed legal action. The court had to weigh the testimonial evidence provided by both parties and consider the credibility and consistency of their accounts. The defendant’s claim of a "no win no fee" agreement was central to its argument, as was the plaintiff's insistence that such an agreement did not exist.

The court found that the defendant's evidence was credible and consistent, supported by various circumstances that lent weight to the claim of a "no win no fee" arrangement. The inconsistencies in the evidence provided by the plaintiff, coupled with the plaintiff's failure to rebut the defendant's account effectively, led the court to conclude that a genuine dispute existed. The court determined that the defendant’s evidence was more reliable and that the statutory demand should be set aside due to the presence of this genuine dispute.

Consequently, the court issued an order setting aside the statutory demand, finding in favour of the defendant on the basis that there was a genuine dispute regarding the debt claimed, primarily due to the potential existence of a "no win no fee" agreement between the parties.