In the matter of Cooperbrown Pty Ltd

Cooperbrown Pty Ltd applied to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia to set aside a creditor's statutory demand. The dispute arose after a creditor issued a statutory demand pursuant to an adjudication determination registered as a judgment in the Local Court. The determination did not include interest and a filing fee, which were part of the statutory demand. The applicant argued that the whole amount claimed in the statutory demand was not the subject of the "judgment debt" as it included components not covered by the adjudication determination. Additionally, the applicant claimed that the affidavit accompanying the application to register the adjudication determination as a judgment was not compliant with the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW). The court was required to determine whether the statutory demand should be set aside due to the inclusion of interest and the filing fee, the lack of a compliant affidavit, and whether there were any other reasons to set aside the demand. The court also considered whether an offsetting claim was established.

The court examined the statutory demand and found that the inclusion of interest and a filing fee not covered by the adjudication determination meant the whole amount claimed was not the subject of the "judgment debt". The court further found that the affidavit accompanying the application to register the adjudication determination as a judgment did not comply with the relevant statutory requirements. However, the court noted that these deficiencies did not necessarily mean the statutory demand should be set aside. The court assessed whether there were other reasons to set aside the demand and concluded that the applicant had not established an offsetting claim that would justify setting aside the demand.

The court decided that the statutory demand should not be set aside, and the application was dismissed. The court held that the inclusion of interest and the filing fee in the statutory demand, as well as the non-compliant affidavit, did not automatically warrant setting aside the demand. The court also found that the applicant had not demonstrated a valid offsetting claim. The court's decision was that the statutory demand remained in effect, and the applicant's application to set it aside was rejected. The court dismissed the application and made no orders for costs.