In the matter of Hengji Development Pty Ltd

Hengji Development Pty Ltd recently faced an application in the Federal Circuit Court concerning the validity of a statutory demand issued by a creditor. The crux of the dispute was whether the statutory demand was properly served, specifically the timing and method of service. The creditor had initially attempted to serve the demand by registered post, but the demand was returned to sender by Australia Post. Subsequently, the demand was purportedly left at the defendant's registered office address. However, there was contention about the precise location within the premises where the demand was left, as the affidavit of service did not provide sufficient details.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the defendant's application to set aside the statutory demand was made within the required timeframe. The court had to determine whether the statutory demand was effectively served when it was left at the registered office, despite the lack of clarity in the affidavit regarding the exact location within the premises. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the defendant's concession that the demand should be set aside if the application was timely filed had any bearing on the timeliness of the application itself.

The court found that the statutory demand was not validly served as the affidavit did not sufficiently specify the exact location within the premises where the demand was left. Despite the defendant's concession that the demand should be set aside if the application was timely, the court held that the application was not made within the requisite period. Consequently, the application to set aside the statutory demand was dismissed.