In the matter of Kay Investment Holdings Pty Ltd

In the matter of Kay Investment Holdings Pty Ltd, the plaintiff sought to set aside a statutory demand issued by the defendant. The dispute arose when the court dismissed an application to set aside the statutory demand due to the defendant's absence. The defendant did not receive notification of the hearing date because the incorrect email address had been used. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff subsequently applied to set aside the order dismissing the application to set aside the statutory demand, arguing that the defendant had not received proper notification of the hearing date.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff was entitled to have the orders set aside due to the defendant's absence caused by the incorrect email address. The court considered whether the plaintiff was entitled ex debito justitiae to have the orders set aside under rule 36.16(2)(b) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005. The court also examined the effect of setting aside the order on the presumption of insolvency, which arose seven days after the application to set aside the statutory demand was finally determined or otherwise disposed of.

The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to have the orders set aside because the defendant had not received proper notification of the hearing date. The court found that the plaintiff was entitled ex debito justitiae to have the orders set aside under rule 36.16(2)(b). The court set aside the order dismissing the application to set aside the statutory demand with retrospective effect. The court also noted that the presumption of insolvency arose seven days after the application to set aside the statutory demand was finally determined or otherwise disposed of. The court made an order setting aside the order dismissing the application to set aside the statutory demand with retrospective effect.