In the matter of Roar Equipment Pty Ltd

Roar Equipment Pty Ltd was the subject of an application for winding up by a creditor, which was subsequently contested by the company. The applicant sought leave to serve a late application for an injunction to stay the winding up under section 459S of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The crux of the matter before the Court was whether the applicant could rely on the dispute over the debt claimed in the statutory demand as a ground for leave, despite the applicant's failure to serve the initial application within the statutory period.

The legal issue was whether the applicant could rely on the disputed nature of the debt to satisfy the requirements for leave under section 459S of the Corporations Act. The Court considered that the requirements for leave under section 459S of the Corporations Act included whether there was a substantial question to be tried and whether the applicant had acted with sufficient expedition. The Court held that the applicant had not acted with sufficient expedition, as the initial application had not been served within the statutory period. Additionally, the Court found that the dispute over the debt was not sufficient to establish a substantial question to be tried, as the applicant had not provided any evidence to support the dispute. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application for leave to serve a late application for an injunction.

The Court's decision was that the applicant's application for leave to serve a late application for an injunction was dismissed. The Court held that the applicant had not satisfied the requirements for leave under section 459S of the Corporations Act, as the applicant had not acted with sufficient expedition and had not established a substantial question to be tried. The Court did not grant the applicant leave to serve a late application for an injunction, and the winding up application remained in effect.