In the matter of One Mastery Developments Pty Ltd

One Mastery Developments Pty Ltd sought to wind up the respondent, an Australian company, following the respondent's failure to comply with a statutory demand for the payment of $110,000. The respondent argued that the application should be dismissed because there was a serious question to be tried on whether the debt was due and payable. The respondent claimed that it had a genuine dispute with the applicant about the amount of the debt and that this dispute was material to the issue of whether the company was solvent. The respondent also sought leave to oppose the winding up application on the grounds that it had not applied to set aside the statutory demand because it had been unaware of it until the winding up application was filed.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the respondent had established a serious question to be tried on the issue of the debt's existence or amount, and whether the respondent's failure to apply to set aside the statutory demand was sufficient to deny it leave to oppose the winding up application. The court noted that the respondent's explanation for its failure to apply to set aside the statutory demand was insufficient, as it had failed to attend to correspondence delivered to its registered office. The court held that the respondent's failure to apply to set aside the statutory demand was unreasonable and that it had not established a serious question to be tried on the issue of the debt. The court dismissed the application to set aside the statutory demand and the application to oppose the winding up application.

The court held that the respondent had failed to establish a serious question to be tried on the issue of the debt's existence or amount. The respondent's explanation for its failure to apply to set aside the statutory demand was insufficient, as it had failed to attend to correspondence delivered to its registered office. The court held that the respondent's failure to apply to set aside the statutory demand was unreasonable and that this failure was a sufficient ground to deny the respondent leave to oppose the winding up application. The court dismissed the application to set aside the statutory demand and the application to oppose the winding up application, and ordered that the respondent be wound up.