In the matter of Myao Travel Pty Limited

Myao Travel Pty Limited was the defendant in a statutory demand issued by the plaintiff, who sought to recover debts. The statutory demand was served by express post and was claimed to have been delivered to an address by attaching a GPS pin to the envelope, showing its location near the defendant's house. The defendant argued that the statutory demand was not delivered to its correct address and that, even if it was delivered, it was not delivered until the day after the Coronavirus Economic Response Package Omnibus Act came into effect, which could have invalidated the service. The Federal Circuit Court was required to determine whether the statutory demand was validly served and, if so, whether the service occurred before the relevant legislative changes.

The court considered the statutory requirements for the service of a statutory demand, including the necessity for the document to be delivered to the defendant's principal place of business or, if not ascertainable, to their last known address. The court also examined the evidence regarding the GPS pin and whether it could prove the statutory demand was delivered to the correct address. Furthermore, the court evaluated the timing of the service in relation to the commencement of the Coronavirus Economic Response Package Omnibus Act, which introduced changes to the service of statutory demands.

The court found that the GPS pin did not provide sufficient evidence to prove the statutory demand was delivered to the correct address. Additionally, the court determined that the statutory demand was not delivered until after the commencement of the Coronavirus Economic Response Package Omnibus Act. Consequently, the court ruled that the statutory demand was not validly served. The court's decision was grounded in the strict requirements of the statutory service provisions and the impact of the legislative changes on the service of statutory demands.

The court ordered that the statutory demand be set aside and that the plaintiff bear the costs of the application. The ruling highlighted the importance of strict compliance with statutory service requirements and the impact of legislative changes on legal processes. The decision reinforced the necessity for clear and indisputable evidence of service in order to meet legal standards.